HELL 

AND  ITS  PROBLEMS 


% 

J.  GODFREY  RAUPERT, 
K.  S.  G. 


CONTENTS : 

I.  The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Hell. 

II.  Some  Popular1  Objections  and  Difficulties  Considered. 

i.  The  Goodness  of  God. 

ii.  The  Justice  of  God. 

iii.  Why  should  Death  be  supposed  to  terminate 
the  Time  of  our  Probation  ? 

► . 

iv.  Why  does  not  God  de'stroy  the  finally  impeni¬ 
tent  Soul? 

v.  Will  not  the  Thought  of  Hell  render  impos-  ■ 
sible  the  Happiness  of  Heaven? 

vi.  Why  does  God  create  beings  whose  future 
Misery  He  must  be  able  to  forsee*? 

III.  The  Personality  of  the  Devil. 

IV.  Manifestations  of  an  Evil  Spirit- World. 


i 

* 

i  i 

< 

» 


¥ 


HELL  AND  ITS  PROBLEMS 


H.  B.  Laudenbach, 

Censor  Librorum. 


imprimatur : 

^  D.  J.  Dougherty, 

Bishop  of  Buffalo. 

Buffalo,  N.  Y., 

November  8,  1917. 


<©bStat, 

Eduardus  Myers, 

Censor  Deputatus. 


imprimatur : 

Hh  Edm.  Can.  SURMONT, 

Vicarius  Generalis. 


Westmonasterii, 
die  7  Junii  1912. 


HELL  AND  ITS 
PROBLEMS 

BY 

J.  GODFREY  RAUPERT,  K.  S.  G. 

AUTHOR  OF 

"THE  SUPREME  PROBLEM,”  "MODERN  SPIRITISM,” 
"THE  DANGERS  OF  SPIRITISM,”  Etc. 


FIRST  AMERICAN  EDITION 


BUFFALO : 

CATHOLIC  UNION  STORE, 
682  MAIN  STREET. 


1917 


Copyright,  1917,  by  J.  Godfrey  Raupert,  K.  S.  G. 
Copyrighted  in  Great  Britain. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 


Preface  7 

i.  The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Hell.  9 

ii.  Some  Popular  Objections  and  Difficulties 

Considered.  27 

i.  The  Goodness  of  God.  27 

ii.  The  Justice  of  God.  37 

iii.  Why  should  Death  be  supposed  to  ter¬ 

minate  the  Time  of  our  Probation?  48 

iv.  Why  does  not  God  destroy  the  finally  im¬ 

penitent  Soul?  63 

v.  Will  not  the  Thought  of  Hell  render  im¬ 

possible  the  Happiness  of  Heaven?  68 

vi.  Why  does  God  create  beings  whose  fu¬ 

ture  Misery  He  must  be  able  to  fore¬ 
see?  74 

iii.  The  Personality  of  the  Devil.  82 

iv.  Manifestations  of  an  Evil  Spirit-World.  94 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 
Boston  Library  Consortium  Member  Libraries  , 


https://archive.org/details/hellitsproblemsOOraup 


PREFACE 


THE  publication  of  this  little  treatise  is  prompted 
by  several  considerations.  Experience  and  obser¬ 
vation  have  convinced  me  that  the  orthodox  doc¬ 
trine  of  Hell  presents  to  many  serious  and  thoughtful 
minds  one  of  the  greatest  stumbling-blocks  in  the  way 
of  a  whole-hearted  and  intelligent  acceptance  of  the 
truths  of  the  Christian  Creed.  I  am  equally  convinced 
that,  in  view  of  the  immovable  foundation  upon  which 
the  doctrine  rests,  the  compromise  offered  by  modern 
liberal  theology,  and  indeed  all  attempts  to  explain  the 
doctrine  away,  are  but  calculated  to  increase  the  intel¬ 
lectual  and  moral  difficulty  a  thousand-fold. 

To  very  many  persons  the  better  philosophical  and 
theological  works,  fairly  and  adequately  dealing  with  the 
subject,  are  either  unknown,  or  are,  by  reason  of  their 
technical  form,  and  for  other  obvious  reasons,  of  little 
service. 

Comparatively  few  are  acquainted  with  the  unex¬ 
pected  disclosures  of  modern  psychical  science,  and  the 
light  which  these  are  calculated  to  throw  upon  the  mys¬ 
teries  enveloping  the  future  life.  They  are,  therefore, 
scarcely  in  a  position  to  think  the  matter  out  clearly  and 
dispassionately,  and  to  weigh  the  considerations  which 
can,  in  fairness,  be  urged  in  favor  of  the  truth  of  the 
doctrine,  from  the  human  point  of  view. 

Having  personally  experienced  the  full  force  of  the 
moral  difficulty  which  belief  in  the  orthodox  doctrine  of 
Hell  involves,  and  having  given  a  good  deal  of  study 
and  time  to  the  matter,  I  felt  that  a  short  statement  of 
the  views  arrived  at,  and  of  what  really  careful  think¬ 
ers  have  written  on  the  subject,  might  prove  suggestive 
and  helpful  to  other  perplexed  and  troubled  minds. 


7 


8 


PREFACE. 


The  subject  obviously  is  one  which  does  not  readily 
lend  itself  to  popular  treatment,  and  the  ideas  expressed 
are  therefore  necssarily  somewhat  crude  and  fragmentary 
in  their  form  and  character.  They  may,  nevertheless, 
induce  some,  who,  for  one  reason  or  another,  have  re¬ 
jected  the  doctrine — and,  as  is  so  often  the  case,  other 
fundamental  doctrines  with  it — to  study  the  subject  with 
greater  care,  and  to  reconsider  their  conclusions.  They 
will,  at  any  rate,  help  them  to  see  that  there  are  better 
and  more  solid  grounds  for  believing  the  doctrine  than  is 
commonly  supposed. 

The  first  issue  of  this  volume  was  published  under 
a  pseudonym  some  years  ago  at  the  suggestion  of  a 
learned  theologian.  In  its  present  form  it  has  undergone 
but  slight  alterations,  a  few  thoughts  only  having  been 
modified  and  several  further  considerations  and  quota¬ 
tions  added. 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  HELL. 


IT  IS  admitted  by  all  really  fair  and  unbiassed  minds 
that  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  Hell  is  a  vital  and  neces¬ 
sary  part  of  the  Christian  Revelation.  The  scrip¬ 
tural  and  historical  evidence  in  its  favor  is  so  exception¬ 
ally  clear  and  conclusive,  that  there  can  be  no  reasonable 
ground  for  doubt  or  choice  in  the  matter.  Nor  is  there 
any  legitimate  way  of  effecting  an  honorable  compromise 
with  modern  rationalistic  thought  and  interpretation. 
The  doctrine  is  not  only  taught  by  Christ  Himself  in  the 
plainest  and  most  unmistakable  terms  of  which  human 
language  is  capable,  but  it  underlies  and  is  implied  in  the 
entire  system  of  thought  developed  in  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  and  may  be  said  to  be  its  very  basis  and  founda¬ 
tion.  Without  the  conception  of  a  future  and  permanent 
state  of  punishment,  consequent  upon  a  life  of  sin  and  re¬ 
bellion  against  God,  the  Christian  scheme  of  Redemption 
has  neither  consistency  nor  coherence,  and  its  most  cen¬ 
tral  doctrines  become  unreasonable  and  incomprehensible. 

This  fact  is,  and  should  be,  clear  to  all  honest  students 
of  this  great  subject,  whose  judgment  has  not  been  per- 
.* verted  by  sophistical  reasoning,  and  who  are  determined 
to  be  loyal  to  fact  and  to  truth.  For  it  does  not  really 
matter  whether  the  subject  be  studied  in  the  original 
Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  or  in  one  of  the  more  mod¬ 
ern  English  versions  of  the  Bible:  whether  allowance  be 
made  for  the  language  of  illustration  and  metaphor,  or 
for  the  most  recent  discoveries  of  the  higher  critic.  It 
is  not  a  question  of  particular  words  of  phrases  or  ex¬ 
pressions,  but  of  great  ideas  and  principles:  of  an  ele¬ 
ment  which  is  intimately  bound  up  with  the  entire 
thought-structure  of  the  Sacred  Writings,  and  which  per¬ 
vades  and  permeates  its  every  part. 


9 


10 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  HELL. 


It  is  instructive  and  significant  to  observe  that  this 
transparent  fact  has  never  been  questioned  by  the  sceptic 
and  the  unbeliever,  however  strongly  he  may  have  op¬ 
posed  the  doctrine  itself  on  moral  grounds.  “It  has  been 
reserved  for  the  accommodating,  shallow  Christians  of 
modern  days,  who  wish  to  reject  it  without  abandoning 
their  belief  in  Christianity,  to  throw  dust  in  other  peo¬ 
ple’s  eyes,  as  well  as  their  own,  by  obscuring  what  is 
really  a  very  simple  matter  with  ingenious — though  it 
may  be  unconscious — sophistries.” 

But  it  may  be  doubted  whether  any  permanent  ser¬ 
vice  has  thus  been  rendered  to  the  cause  of  Christianity 
and  of  truth.  Such  literary  tricks  may  impress  the  su¬ 
perficial  few;  they  have  little,  if  any,  weight  with  really 
logical  and  consistent  thinkers.  Their  worthlessness  is 
bound  to  be  detected  sooner  or  later.  For  it  is  impos¬ 
sible,  by  any  method  or  artifice,  to  get  rid  of  the  plain 
and  striking  statements  of  Holy  Writ.  Such  words  as  are 
employed  by  Christ  Himself  in  St.  Matthew  XXV.  41,  46; 
in  St.  Mark  III.  29;  and  IX.  47,  48;  Rev.  XIV.  10,  11;  and 
XXI.  8  remain,  as  the  late  Sir  James  Stephen  rightly  said, 
“the  most  terrific  words  which  have  ever  been  spoken  in 
the  ears  of  man”  and  they  will  retain  their  force  and  im¬ 
port  however  ingenious  the  attempt  may  be  to  empty 
them  of  their  meaning.  In  such  a  matter  as  this  it  is 
surely  a  dangerous  thing  for  the  mind  to  seek  refuge  in 
a  false  security,  and  to  allow  the  impression  to  take 
root  that,  by  ignoring  the  unwelcome  truth,  it  has  ceased 
to  exist  for  us,  or  that  we  have  escaped  the  responsibili¬ 
ties  which  its  recognition  entails.  Our  duty  is  rather  to 
face  it  bravely  and,  God  helping  us,  to  seek  for  safe  and 
legitimate  and  God-appointed  means  of  escape. 

It  is  assumed  by  very  many  intelligent  persons  that 
the  orthodox  conception  of  Hell  is  inconsistent  with  rea¬ 
son  and  with  cultivated  thought,  and  that  it  has  been  re¬ 
jected  by  a  large  number  of  really  thoughtful  theologians. 
Loose  statements  to  this  effect  are  frequently  made  from 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  HELL. 


11 


Protestant  pulpits,  and  they  are  apt  to  seriously  impress 
the  modern  mind.  But  a  greater  error  cannot  be  con¬ 
ceived.  The  most  cultured  and  enlightened  amongst  Cath¬ 
olic  and  Protestant  theologians,  of  both  ancient  and  mod¬ 
ern  times,  have  explicitly  stated  it  as  their  most  earnest 
conviction  that  the  doctrine  is  a  vital  and  integral  part 
of  the  New  Testament  teaching,  and  that  the  only  safe 
and  honest  thing  is  to  acknowledge  the  fact. 

St.  Augustine,  one  of  the  greatest  and  most  learned 
fathers  of  the  Christian  Church,  says:  “What  a  thing 
it  is  to  account  eternal  punishment  to  be  a  fire  of  long 
duration  (merely),  and  eternal  life  to  be  without  end, 
since  Christ  comprised  both,  in  that  very  same  place,  in 
one  and  the  same  sentence,  saying:  ‘These  shall  go  into 
eternal  punishment,  but  the  just  into  life  everlasting.’  If 
both  are  eternal,  either  both  must  be  understood  to  be 
lasting  with  an  end,  or  both  perpetual  without  end.  For 
like  is  related  to  like :  on  the  one  side  eternal  punishment, 
on  the  other,  eternal  life.  But  to  say  in  one  and  the  same 
sentence  life  eternal  shall  be  without  end,  punishment 
eternal  and  Hell  have  an  end,  were  too  absurd;  whence, 
since  the  eternal  life  of  the  saints  shall  be  without  end, 
punishment,  eternal  too,  shall  doubtless  have  no  end  to 
those  whose  it  shall  be.”  1 

Passaglia,  a  renowned  theologian,  and  a  man  well 
qualified  to  speak  with  authority  on  this  subject,  well  ob¬ 
served:  “Either  St.  John  and  Isaiah  used  terms  expres¬ 
sive  of  eternal  duration,  or  else  there  is  no  such  term  to 
be  found.” 

“Every  form  of  words  employed  in  Scripture  to  de¬ 
scribe  everlastingness,”  wrote  Dr.  Angus,  “our  Lord  and 
His  Apostles  employ  to  describe  the  state  of  those  who 
die  in  sin  and  disbelief.”  Or,  as  Mr.  Oxenham,  a  Roman 
Catholic  writer,  expresses  it:  “The  most  uncompromis¬ 
ing  revelation  of  this  awful  truth,  which  no  rationalizing 


1  “De  Civitate  JDei,”  xxi.  23. 


12 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  HELL. 


sophistry  can  effectually  obscure,  issued  from  the  lips  of 
the  Incarnate  Word  Himself.” 

In  a  sermon  on  “the  Spirits  in  Prison,”  the  late  Dr. 
Vaughan,  Master  of  the  Temple,  a  learned  and  liberal 
theologian,  said:  “I  cannot  get  rid  of  three  words — cer¬ 
tainly  not  of  the  three  things  meant  by  them — from  my 
Bible.  I  may  write  'Hell,’  ‘Hades,’  in  one  place,  and  ‘Ge¬ 
henna,’  in  another.  I  may  write  ‘damnation’  into  ‘con¬ 
demnation,’  because  wicked  men  have  made  the  old  form 
a  profanity,  and  I  may  turn  ‘everlasting’  into  ‘eternal,’ 
if  I  can  thereby  better  express  the  idea  of  duration  of 
being,  without  involving  the  idea  of  succession  of  time. 
But  what  then?  Are  the  things  gone  because  you  have  re¬ 
christened  them?” 

Such  are  the  views  of  some  really  careful  and  learned 
thinkers  on  this  great  subject  who,  we  may  suppose,  were 
fully  alive  to  the  moral  difficulties  which  their  conclusions 
involved.  Numerous  others  might  be  quoted  were  it  not 
that  this  volume  is  to  be  of  limited  size  and  is  not  to 
assume  the  form  of  a  theological  treatise.  But  if  this  be 
so,  what  are  we  to  say  of  those  modern  pseudo-theologians 
who,  to  please  the  spirit  of  the  age,  attack  the  very  cen¬ 
tral  stronghold  of  the  Faith,  even  at  the  risk  of  discredit¬ 
ing  Christianity  itself,  and  of  loosening  its  hold  upon  the 
human  mind.  There  is,  as  has  been  rightly  said,  nothing 
so  contemptible  as  scepticism  masquerading  in  a  surplice. 
There  is  nothing  so  offensive  and  grotesque  as  the  picture 
of  the  modern  critic  apologizing  for  his  belief,  and  ac¬ 
commodating  its  central  verities  to  the  rationalizing  ten¬ 
dencies  of  the  age  in  which  he  lives.  It  is  a  very  striking 
instance  of  the  salt  losing  its  savour,  of  the  blind  lead¬ 
ing  the  blind:  of  Revealed  Truth,  instead  of  restraining 
and  modifying  human  thought  and  action,  humbly  adapt¬ 
ing  itself  to  the  supposed  claims  of  human  reason. 

And  it  must  be  clear  that  the  moral  perils  involved 
in  such  an  attitude  of  mind  are  of  exceptional  magnitude, 
and  that  they  are  of  necessity  far-reaching  in  their  influ- 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  HELL. 


13 


ence  upon  conduct  and  character.  Fear  of  punishment,  it 
is  true,  is  not  the  best  and  highest  motive  for  right-doing; 
but  it  is  a  very  powerful  motive  nevertheless,  and,  with 
certain  orders  of  mind,  the  only  influence  which  is  active 
in  restraining  and  controlling  the  moral  life. 

“The  Passion  and  Hell,”  wrote  the  late  Father  F.  W. 
Faber,  “are  the  two  great  foundations  out  of  which  men 
learn  a  profound  hatred  of  sin;  they  are  the  two  well¬ 
heads  of  sacred  fear;  they  are  two  revelations  of  God 
most  necessary  to  complete  a  true  idea  of  Him.”  1 

The  truth  of  these  assertions  may  be  called  in  ques¬ 
tion  by  some  modern  philosophers  who  speak  of  man  as 
he  exists  in  their  own  imagination  and  who  have  formu¬ 
lated  a  Christianity  after  their  own  hearts;  they  will  not 
be  denied  by  those  who  have  stood  face  to  face  with  the 
great  problems  of  social  and  moral  evil,  and  who  know 
from  practical  experience  what  man  really  is. 

Any  such  authoritative  denial  of  the  doctrine  of  Hell, 
moreover,  is  bound  to  be  disastrous  to  earnest  faith  in 
the  central  verities  of  the  Christian  religion.  In  the 
Christian  scheme  of  Redemption  one  doctrine  depends  up¬ 
on  the  other,  one  implies  and  explains  the  other,  and  the 
bond  which  unites  them  cannot  be  severed  without  loosen¬ 
ing  each  separate  link,  and  without  rendering  the  whole 
scheme  illogical  and  unreasonable.  The  doctrine  of  Hell 
*is  a  necessary  part  of  this  scheme,  and  a  denial  of  it  is 
almost  always  followed  by  denial  of  some  other  impor¬ 
tant  doctrine  connected  with  the  Incarnation  and  Re¬ 
demption  of  Christ.  It  inevitably  leads  to  what  is  termed 
“advanced”  and  “liberal”  views,  and  what  is  this  but  an¬ 
other  name  for  disbelief,  or  rejection,  of  truths  which  the 
natural  human  reason  cannot  square  with  its  dictates  and 
surmises,  and  against  which  the  unaided  intellect  rebels. 

The  religious  movements  of  the  present  day,  and  the 
normal  attitude  of  numbers  of  intelligent  persons  toward 


1  “Spiritual  Conferences.” 


14 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  HELL. 


the  Historic  Faith  are  surely  striking  evidence  in  support 
of  this  statement.  To  hold  orthodox  views — in  other 
words,  to  believe  what  God  has  manifestly  revealed  even 
though  the  mind  may  not  be  able  to  grasp  it  fully,  has 
come  to  be  regarded  as  a  sign  of  imperfect  education,  or 
of  inferior  intellect,  and  there  are  scores  of  people  who 
would  think  it  nothing  short  of  a  personal  insult  were  one 
to  regard  them  as  still  believing  in  the  existence  of  the 
orthodox  Hell. 

Some  of  them,  of  course,  have  never  been  taught  to 
think  logically  and  accurately,  and  merely  echo  the  pre¬ 
dominating  views  of  the  multitude.  Some  have  no  clear 
notion  of  what  the  doctrine  of  Hell  really  teaches,  and 
direct  their  attack  not  so  much  against  the  doctrine  it¬ 
self,  as  against  some  popular  and  unwarrantable  exposi¬ 
tion  of  it.  Some  have  been  carried  away  by  the  postu¬ 
lates  of  their  natural  reason,  and  by  a  supposed  con¬ 
flict  between  the  ascertained  facts  of  modern  science  and 
Revealed  Religion.  The  greater  number  by  far  are  the 
victims  of  half-instructed  and  sceptical  religious  teachers, 
who  lack  the  courage  necessary  for  withstanding  the 
stream  of  modern  tendencies,  and  who  are  perhaps 
vaguely  conscious  that  they  would  be  of  but  small  repu¬ 
tation  did  they  not  advance  with  that  stream.  But  the 
result  is  the  same  in  either  case.  It  is  doubt  and  distrust 
of  the  essential  truths  of  Revelation,  and  an  attitude  of 
mind  which  amounts  to  a  practical  rejection  of  them.  The 
disappearance  of  Hell,  by  a  logical  process  of  thought 
and  inference,  transforms  the  entire  conception  of  the 
nature  of  sin  and  its  consequences.  A  modified  and  more 
“rational”  notion  of  sin  invalidates  the  doctrine  of  the 
Atonement  and  Redemption,  and  the  re-adjustment  of 
that  doctrine  again  throws  doubt  upon  the  nature  and 
divinity  of  Christ.  Thus,  step  by  step,  the  subtle  work 
of  destruction  goes  on,  and  is  only  completed  when  the 
supernatural  element  of  Christianity  has  disappeared, 
and  the  disclosures  of  Christ  respecting  human  duty  and 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  HELL. 


15 


human  destiny  have  either  been  explained  away,  or  have 
been  adapted  to  the  claims  of  unilluminated  human  rea¬ 
son. 

It  is  sometimes  assumed,  and  in  many  instances  even 
boldly  asserted,  that  science,  so  far  as  it  can  be  expected 
to  express  an  opinion  on  such  a  subject,  of  necessity  pro¬ 
nounces  against  the  doctrine  of  Hell,  and  that  the  latter 
stands  in  violent  antagonism  to  the  ascertained  laws  of 
nature  and  of  life.  But  this  impression,  too,  has  no  foun¬ 
dation  whatever  in  fact.  On  the  contrary  the  modern 
doctrine  of  the  conservation  and  correlation  of  forces  tes¬ 
tifies  in  favor  of  the  existence  of  Hell,  and,  granting  an¬ 
other  life,  indeed  almost  postulates  it  as  a  physical  neces¬ 
sity.  There  are  eminent  scientific  men  who,  reasoning 
from  the  reign  of  ascertained  law  in  the  physical  uni¬ 
verse,  have  inferred  the  reign  of  unchanging  law  in  the 
spiritual  universe,  and  have  thus  found  reasonable 
grounds,  on  scientific  principles,  for  defending  and  main¬ 
taining  the  Christian  doctrine  of  Hell.  Some  years  ago, 
an  eminent  biologist  gave  expression  to  his  views  on  this 
point  in  the  following  words:  “Now,  any  being  to  whom 
has  been  given  that  wonderful  power  will,  with  all  the 
consequent  responsibilities  of  a  state  of  probation,  must 
be  able  to  fail  as  well  as  to  succeed — the  very  term  ‘proba¬ 
tion’  implies  a  risk  of  failure.  What  are  we  to  deem 
•probable  as  to  the  consequences  of  such  failure?  Reason 
unaided  can  tell  us  very  little  of  the  soul  after  death. 
Certainly  we  have  no  evidence  that  it  will  then  be  able 
to  undo  what  it  has  done  during  life,  but  rather  the  con¬ 
trary.  The  doctrine  of  the  persistence  of  force  does  not 
favor  such  a  view  and  there  is  nothing  which  contra¬ 
dicts  the  Church’s  assertion  that  the  state  in  which  the 
soul  finds  itself  at  the  close  of  life’s  trial  cannot  be  re¬ 
versed.  If  so,  the  man  who  dies  in  a  state  of  aversion 
from  the  highest  light  and  the  supreme  good  must 
remain  in  such  a  state  with  all  its  inevitable  conse¬ 
quences.” 


16 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  HELL. 


“Some  will  say  those  consequences  need  not  be  eternal. 
But  if  the  cause  should  be  unchangeable,  how  can  the 
consequences  change?  Moreover,  we  are  contemplating 
what  relates  to  eternity,  when  time  shall  have  ceased  to 
be.” 

The  learned  authors 1  of  that  deeply  interesting 
work  “The  Unseen  Universe”  wrote  as  follows:  “To  some 
extent,  no  doubt,  Christ’s  description  of  the  universal 
Gehenna  must  be  regarded  as  figurative,  but  yet  we  do 
not  think  that  the  sayings  of  Christ,  with  regard  to  the 
unseen  world,  ought  to  be  looked  upon  as  nothing  more 
than  pure  figures  of  speech.  We  feel  sure  that  the  prin¬ 
ciple  of  continuity  cries  out  against  such  an  interpre¬ 
tation — may  they  not  rather  be  descriptions  of  what  takes 
place  in  the  unseen  universe,  brought  home  to  our  minds 
by  means  of  perfectly  true  comparisons  with  the  pro¬ 
cesses  and  things  of  this  present  universe  which  they  most 
resemble?  Thus  the  Christian  Gehenna  bears  to  the  un¬ 
seen  universe  precisely  the  same  relation  as  the  Ge¬ 
henna  of  the  Jews  did  to  the  city  of  Jerusalem.  And 
just  as  the  fire  was  always  kept  up,  and  the  worm  ever 
active  in  the  one,  so  are  we  forced  to  contemplate  an  en¬ 
during  process  in  the  other.  For  we  cannot  easily  agree 
with  those  who  would  limit  the  existence  of  evil  to  the 
present  world.  We  know  now  that  the  matter  of  the 
whole  of  the  visible  universe  is  of  a  piece  with  that  which 
we  recognize  here,  and  the  beings  of  other  worlds  must 
be  subject  to  accidental  occurrences  from  their  relation 
with  the  outer  universe  in  the  same  way  as  we  are.  But 
if  there  be  accident,  must  there  not  be  pain  and  death? 
Now,  these  are  naturally  associated  in  our  minds  with 
the  presence  of  moral  evil.  We  are  thus  drawn,  if  not 
absolutely  forced,  to  surmise  that  the  dark  thread  known 
as  evil  is  one  which  is  very  deeply  woven  into  that  gar¬ 
ment  of  God  which  is  called  the  universe.  In  fine,  just 

1  Profs.  P.  G.  Tait  and  B.  Stewart. 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  HELL 


17 


as  the  arguments  of  this  chapter  lead  us  to  regard  the 
whole  universe  as  eternal,  so  in  like  manner  are  we  led 
to  regard  evil  as  eternal,  and  therefore  we  cannot  easily 
imagine  the  universe  without  its  Gehenna,  where  the 
worm  dieth  not  and  the  fire  is  not  quenched.  The  process 
at  all  events  would  seem  to  be  most  probably  an  endur¬ 
ing  one.” 

In  a  striking  work  on  “The  Natural  History  of  Hell,” 
an  American  writer1  says:  “Every  phenomenon  is  the 
result  of  preceding  causes,  and  becomes  itself  the  cause 
of  other  occurrences,  and  this  obtains  both  in  the  moral 
and  physical  world.  If  the  consequences  of  every  act 
cling  to  us  for  all  time,  then  the  consequence  of  our 
wrong-doing  can  be  no  exception.  The  wrong-doer  will 
go  down  through  all  the  endless  cycles  of  eternity  chained 
to  his  doom,  not  by  the  arbitrary  sentence  of  a  capricious 
judge,  but  by  the  adamantine  links  of  cause  and  effect, 
working  in  strict  accord  with  laws  whose  action  knows  no 
pity  and  no  mitigation.  Compared  with  such  links  the 
iron  chains  which  bound  the  vulture-gnawed  Prometheus 
to  his  rock  are  but  as  cords  of  silk  and  ropes  of  sand. 
From  such  a  doom  there  is  no  escape  but  by  a  miracle. 
That  the  intellect  and  moral  sensibilities  may  be  rendered 
more  delicate  and  more  acute  is  within  the  range  of  our 
knowledge  and  experience.  Some  men  seem  to  be  under 
the  influence  of  a  moral  anaesthetic,  and  do  not  feel  the 
keen  pain  which  results  from  knowing  that  they  have 
done  ill.  But  let  the  moral  sense  be  awakened,  and  an 
increased  knowledge  attained  of  the  evil  results  of  their 
actions,  and  then  the  intellectual  torture  becomes  fearful. 
As  is  well  known  to  medical  men,  cases  often  arise  in 
which  the  nervous  system  becomes  supersensitive,  and 
the  prick  of  a  pin,  or  the  slightest  touch  gives  exquisite 
pain.  Let  us  imagine  that,  after  a  career  of  crime,  the 
moral  and  intellectual  sensibilities  of  the  evil-doer  should 


1  Philipson. 


18 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  HELL 


be  rendered  intensely  acute,  can  we  imagine  a  more  ter¬ 
rible  Hell  than  that  to  which  he  would  thus  be  consigned? 
If  these  sufferings  are  the  normal  result  of  natural  laws, 
then,  so  long  as  these  laws  maintain  their  sway,  there 
is  no  escape,  and  can  be  no  pardon.  Pardon — that  is 
release  from  misery — can  only  come  by  a  suspension  of 
these  laws,  or,  in  other  words,  by  a  miracle.” 

“Thus  far,  then,  science  leads  us  and  no  farther. 
When  she  has  pronounced  our  doom  she  shows  no  way 
of  pardon  or  escape;  and  he  who  relies  upon  natural 
laws  and  the  general  beneficence  of  the  Creator,  must 
see  that  in  this  there  is  no  promise  of  mitigation.  If 
left  to  Nature,  and  to  Nature’s  laws,  we  can  only  sit 
down  in  the  dust  and  cry,  ‘Woe  is  me’!” 

The  testimony  of  many  other  thoughtful  minds  might 
be  adduced  in  order  to  demonstrate  the  fact  that  disbe¬ 
lief  of  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  Hell  is  not,  as  it  some¬ 
times  supposed,  the  characteristic  of  really  deep  and 
searching  thinkers,  but,  on  the  contrary,  rather  an  evi¬ 
dence  of  superficial  reflection  and  of  hasty  generaliza¬ 
tion.  The  pride  of  the  half-educated,  as  one  has  well 
said,  always  discovers  a  short  cut  to  unbelief. 

In  the  course  of  an  elaborate  discussion  of  a  kindred 
subject  The  Spectator  not  very  long  ago  remarked:  “It 
certainly  cannot  be  shown  that  either  progressive  purifi¬ 
cation  or  progressive  degradation  necessarily  comes  to 
an  end  *  *  *  nor  have  we  the  smallest  vestige  of  evi¬ 
dence  that  the  downward  progress  of  the  will  is  a  termin¬ 
able  process,  and  comes  to  any  natural  end.  It  may  do  so 
if  immortality  depends  only  on  the  union  with  God.  But 
there  is  certainly  a  sort  of  antagonism  to  God,  which  ap¬ 
pears  to  be  progressive,  as  well  as  the  union  with  Him, 
and  antagonism  means  conscious  existence  no  less  than 
love  means  conscious  existence.  All  we  can  say  is,  that 
if  a  man  be  what  Mr.  Gladstone  terms  immortalisable, 
there  is  no  final  reason  (unless  it  be  God’s  mercy)  why 
he  should  not  be  immortalisable  in  one  direction  as  well 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  HELL 


19 


as  in  the  other;  and  that,  while  a  good  deal  of  our  moral 
and  spiritual  experience  tends  to  show  the  durability  of 
remorse,  and  the  persistence  of  the  growing  incapacity 
to  turn  back  after  a  certain  point  in  the  downward  stage 
is  reached,  we  have  only  the  vaguest  hope  to  rely  on  for 
our  anticipation  that  all  suffering  must  finally  end.” 

“This,  at  least,  is  true,”  says  another  learned  writer 
on  the  subject,  “that  we  can  find  in  the  study  of  observed 
spiritual  and  moral  phenomena,  and  in  the  comparison 
of  indisputable  laws  of  God’s  creation,  an  indication,  such 
as  prompts  the  watcher  of  the  skies  to  expect  the  ap¬ 
pearance  of  a  new  planet,  that  an  eternal  doom  of  evil 
must  be  awaiting  sin  just  beyond  the  grave.” 

Again,  the  doctrine  of  Hell  is  declared  to  be  in  con¬ 
flict  with  the  testimony  of  our  normal  moral  instincts. 
This  is  perhaps  the  most  popular  objection  of  all,  and  is 
one  which  is  supposed  to  settle  the  matter  finally.  But 
this  objection,  too,  has  no  foundation  in  fact.  There  is 
such  a  thing,  of  course,  as  an  artificial  conscience,  a  way 
of  silencing  the  natural  voice  of  the  soul  by  sophistry 
and  reasoning.  Our  moral  nature  can,  with  a  certain 
kind  of  manipulation,  be  made  to  witness  falsely.  But 
the  unperverted  instinct  of  man,  his  normal  natural  con¬ 
science,  unquestionably  testifies  in  favor  of  some  grievous 
punishment  consequent  upon  sin  and  final  impenitence. 

•  Africa — The  ancient  Egyptians  taught  and  believed 
that  the  souls  of  the  sinful  must  appear  before  the  judg¬ 
ment  seat  of  Osiris  to  be  condemned  to  successive  incar¬ 
nations  in  the  bodies  of  animals. 

A  similar  belief  is  held  by  the  Libyans,  the  Ethiopians 
and  the  various  negro  races  of  modern  Africa.  The 
wicked  souls  pass  into  the  hands  of  the  wicked  spirit  in 
his  dark  habitation,  or  wander  about  in  the  air  or  in  the 
forest  full  of  malice  and  restlessness. 

Asia — As  regards  the  Asiatic  races,  the  Ancient  Per¬ 
sians  already  taught  that  the  souls  of  the  godless  pass 
into  the  power  of  the  evil  spirit. 


20 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  HELL 


According  to  the  belief  of  the  Indians  the  soul  ap¬ 
pears  before  the  judge  of  the  dead  immediately  upon 
leaving  its  body.  The  soul  of  the  wicked  goes  to  Hell, 
there  to  be  tormented  in  various  ways.  The  ancient 
Chinese  teach  that  the  souls  of  the  wicked  join  the  com¬ 
pany  of  evil  spirits,  or  wander  about  in  various  forms 
in  graveyards  and  other  places.  The  Japanese,  too,  ex¬ 
clude  all  sinful  souls  from  heaven. 

America  and  South  Sea  Islands — The  Greenland¬ 
ers  believe  that  the  souls  of  the  wicked  are  condemned 
to  a  deep  subterranean  region  which  is  without  warmth 
and  light  and  where  they  are  full  of  fear  and  terror. 

The  Mexicans  hold  that  the  wicked  go  to  the  lower 
regions  where  various  places  exist  for  various  crimes. 

According  to  the  belief  of  the  Peruvians  the  souls  of 
wicked  men  are  banished  to  a  place  in  the  centre  of  the 
earth  where  there  is  no  rest,  but  sickness  and  trouble  of 
various  kinds. 

The  North  American  Indians,  too,  have  a  conception 
of  Hell,  where  the  wicked  must  eat  bitter  fruits,  or  are 
cast  into  a  deep  well  in  which  fire  is  burning. 

Many  of  the  South  Sea  Islanders  believe  that  the 
wicked  go  to  a  dark  country  where  the  sun  never  shines 
and  where  there  is  only  muddy  water. 

Europe — The  Hell  of  the  old  Germanic  races  was  a 
deep  precipice  where  the  old  envious  serpent  had  her  be¬ 
ing  and  was  incessantly  gnawing  at  the  roots  of  the 
tree  of  life,  in  perpetual  enmity  with  the  spirit  of  God. 
They  believe  that  in  this  Hell  murderers  and  perjurers 
were  torturd  for  ever. 

The  proper  place  of  punishment  of  the  old  Greeks 
and  Romans  was  Tartarus.  We  know  from  classic 
sources  what  the  nature  of  its  terrors  was.  Similar  to 
what  we  read  in  Virgil  and  Ovid  are  the  expressions 
used  by  the  Greek  poets:  Homer,  Pindar,  Euripides, 
Sophocles,  Aristophanes,  and  by  philosophers  such  as 
Pythagoras,  Socrates,  Aristotle,  Plato. 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  HELL 


21 


By  the  latter  we  have  that  famous  sentence  (Phaedon, 
p.  114) : 

“Those  whose  condition,  by  reason  of  the  heinousness 
of  their  crimes,  are  seen  to  be  incurable,  a  well-deserved 
fate  hurls  into  Tartarus,  which  they  never  leave  again.” 

In  this  unanimous  testimony  of  both  cultivated  and 
uncultivated  races  and  nations  wre  have  the  universal 
instinctive  convictions  of  mankind  expressed.  And  it 
seems  to  me  that  whatever  allowance  we  may  have  to 
make  with  respect  to  the  particular  form  in  which  this 
belief  expresses  itself,  it  is  impossible  to  assume  that,  in 
the  matter  of  the  belief  itself,  all  these  races  and  na¬ 
tions  should  have  been  allowed  to  fall  into  error. 

But  this  “voice  of  nature”  clearly  is  not  in  agreement 
with  the  voice  of  “enlightened”  modern  reason! 

On  the  other  hand,  we  have  to  recognize  the  fact 
that  by  far  the  larger  majority  of  mankind  are  not  re¬ 
strained  from  evil  action  and  from  self-indulgence  by 
the  love  of  God  and  of  good,  but  by  the  fear  of  pun¬ 
ishment,  vaguely  felt  by  the  conscience  to  be  certain  and 
inevitable.  It  is  this  motive  alone  which  rules  and  regu¬ 
lates  the  wills  and  affections  of  those  whose  normal  ten¬ 
dencies  are  altogether  downwards,  and  who  cannot  be 
said  to  be  restrained  by  any  secondary  law  governing  the 
social  life.  They  may  not  be  able  to  define  the  mysteri¬ 
ous  power  which  is  thus  working  in  their  moral  nature; 
they  may  even  be  inclined  to  deny  its  existence;  but  it  is 
there,  nevertheless,  and  is  apt  at  certain  times  to  make 
itself  most  practically  and  unpleasantly  felt. 

The  false  liberalism  of  the  age  has  given  rise  to  the 
notion  that  the  fear  of  punishment  is  one  of  the  lower 
and  unworthier  motives  which  lead  men  to  do  right  and 
to  pursue  and  cultivate  high  and  spiritual  ideals  rather 
than  ignoble  and  earthly  ones.  And  human  vanity  has 
readily  adopted  this  notion  as  a  kind  of  truism,  dem¬ 
onstrating,  as  it  is  supposed  to  do,  that  we  have  left 
childish  and  savage  things  behind  us  and  have  reached 


22 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  HELL 


a  more  exalted  stage  in  our  moral  evolution.  But  it 
seems  to  me  that  a  subtle  self-deception  lies  behind  this 
popular  notion.  A  superficial  study  even  of  human  life 
and  human  character  constantly  exhibits  its  fallacy.  It 
is  most  certainly  not  love  of  God  that  restrains  even 
refined  and  cultivated  men  from  an  indulgence  of  their 
passions  and  from  entering  upon  crooked  and  forbidden 
paths  in  the  various  relationships  of  life.  What  does 
restrain  them  is  the  sense  and  fear  of  punishment — in 
the  form  of  dishonor  and  loss  of  social  prestige  in  the 
temporal  order,  and  of  dimly-discerned  perhaps,  but 
nevertheless  conceivably  serious  consequences  in  the  spir¬ 
itual  order. 

The  recognition  of  this  fact  may  be  humiliating  to 
our  pride  and  self-conceit;  but  its  importance  will  be 
recognized  by  all  those  who  take  the  matter  seriously  and 
who  are  determined  to  see  things  as  they  really  are. 

And,  admitting  this  fact,  what  is  the  revealed  doctrine 
of  Hell,  but  a  confirmation  of  these  vague  instincts  and 
promptings  of  nature — the  warning  voice  of  God  speak¬ 
ing  here  and  now  in  emphatic  and  unmistakable  terms. 

“Menace  as  well  as  promise,”  wrote  Mr.  Gladstone, 
“menace  for  those  whom  promise  could  not  melt  or  move, 
formed  an  essential  part  of  the  provision  for  working 
out  the  redemption  of  the  world. 

“So  far  as  my  knowledge  and  experience  go,  we  are 
in  danger  of  losing  this  subject  out  of  sight  and  out  of 
mind.  I  am  not  now  speaking  of  everlasting  punish¬ 
ments  in  particular,  but  of  all  and  any  punishment;  and 
can  it  be  right,  can  it  be  warrantable  that  the  Pulpit 
and  the  Press  should  advisedly  fall  short  of  the  standard 
established  by  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  not  less  uni¬ 
formly  by  the  earliest  and  most  artless  period  of  horta¬ 
tory  Christian  teaching?  Is  it  not  altogether  undeniable 
that  these  authorities  did  so  handle  the  subject  of  this 
penal  element,  in  the  frequency  of  mention  and  in  the 
manner  of  handling,  that  in  their  Christian  system  it  had 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  HELL 


23 


a  place  as  truly  operative,  as  clear,  palpable,  and  impres¬ 
sive,  as  the  more  attractive  doctrines  of  redeeming  love? 
I  sometimes  fear  that  we  have  lived  into  a  period  of  in¬ 
timidation  in  this  great  matter.  That  broad  and  simple 
promulgation  of  the  new  scheme  which  is  known  as  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  was  closed  with  the  awful  pres¬ 
entation  of  the  house  built  upon  the  sand.” 

With  these  wise  words,  based  on  an  accurate  knowl¬ 
edge  of  the  Scriptures,  and,  of  course,  on  the  many-sided 
experiences  of  a  life  affording  unique  opportunities  of  in¬ 
sight  into  human  character,  I  most  thoroughly  agree. 

It  cannot  be  accidental,  surely,  that  Holy  Scripture 
contains  far  more  warnings  of  Hell  than  promises  of 
Heaven.  He  Who  searches  the  hearts  and  reins  knows 
what  truth  is  best  calculated  to  stay  and  direct  the  weak 
and  frail  mind  of  man.  I  feel  confident  that  when  the 
secret  history  of  each  saved  soul  comes  hereafter  to  be 
revealed,  it  will  be  found  that  the  fear  of  Hell  has 
saved  more  souls  from  Hell  than  the  promises  of  Heaven. 
Although  fear  is  not  the  highest  motive  to  virtue,  it  is 
the  most  common  one  nevertheless,  and,  in  the  critical 
moment  of  life,  the  most  powerful  one  beyond  doubt. 

But  from  whatever  point  of  view  we  may  be  disposed 
to  regard  the  matter  it  is  certain  beyond  all  possible 
doubt  that  the  doctrine  of  Hell — of  Eternal  Punishment — 
is  both  explicitly  and  implicitly  taught  by  Christ  and  by 
the  Apostles,  and  by  all  the  Saints  and  Martyrs,  and  the 
really  great  theologians  after  their  time,  and  that  it  is 
one  of  the  very  corner-stones  upon  which  the  Christian 
system  of  Redemption  and  Restoration  reposes.  And, 
admitting  this  fact,  it  is  surely  an  unpardonable  offense 
on  the  part  of  some  modern  teachers,  often  for  the  sake 
of  notoriety,  to  waver  and  hesitate  in  fully  declaring  this 
truth,  or  so  to  veil  and  obscure  it  as  to  empty  it  of  its 
full  moral  weight  and  import.  In  the  face  of  the  mo¬ 
mentous  interests  at  stake  such  a  mode  of  action  is  not 
charity,  but  cruelty  and  unfaithfulness.  For,  “if  in- 


24 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  HELL 


deed  so  terrible  a  doom  awaits  the  finally  impenitent, 
the  surest  guarantee  for  escaping  it  hereafter  is  not  to 
forget  it  now.  If  the  doctrine  of  eternal  punishment  be 
a  revealed  verity  it  is  treason  to  God  and  treachery  to 
men  to  withhold  or  disguise  it,  or  tamper  with  it,  be¬ 
cause  we  may  choose  to  think  it  better  to  leave  them  in 
ignorance  of  what  He  has  taught  it  better  to  reveal. 

“To  presume  upon  overriding  the  express  declarations 
of  the  Lord  Himself,  delivered  upon  His  own  authority,  is 
surely  to  break  up  Revealed  Religion  in  its  very  ground¬ 
work,  and  to  substitute  for  it  a  flimsy  speculation,  spun, 
like  the  spider’s  web,  by  the  private  spirit,  and  about  as 
little  capable  as  that  web  of  bearing  the  strain  by  which 
the  false  is  to  be  severed  from  the  true.”  1 

One  fact  most  certainly  remains:  The  doctrine  of 
Hell  may  be  rejected — its  truth  cannot  be  disproved,  and 
the  disquieting  thought  remains  that  is  is  conceivable. 
It  may  well  be  that  the  difficulty  does  not  lie  in  the  doc¬ 
trine  itself,  but  in  the  limitation  of  the  natural  intellect, 
which  cannot  reason  conclusively  respecting  the  things  of 
the  supernatural  order. 

But,  if  the  doctrine  be  true,  unbelief  will  be  seen  to 
be  a  far  more  perilous  thing  than  at  first  sight  appears. 
The  denial  may  in  itself  seem  trivial;  but,  by  the  conse¬ 
quences  of  it,  we  may  forfeit  the  means  of  attaining  sal¬ 
vation,  since  we  thus  put  ourselves  outside  the  reach  of 
Christ’s  method  of  redemption.  Those,  therefore,  who 
deny  it  should  have  a  very  high  degree  of  instinctive 
certainty  or  they  are  guilty  of  fearful  levity.  A  man 
intending  to  commit  suicide  may  change  his  mind  when 
he  is  in  the  water,  but  he  may  for  all  that  be  unable  to 
catch  hold  of  the  rope  which  is  held  out  to  him,  and  he 
may  perish.  The  consequences  would  be  the  same  as 
in  the  case  of  the  man  who  will  not  catch  hold  of  the 
rope.  Rightly,  therefore,  does  Diderot  say:  “A  sensible 


1  W.  E.  Gladstone. 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  HELL 


25 


man  will  act  in  life  as  though  there  was  a  Hell  so  long 
as  a  fragment  of  doubt  as  to  the  existence  of  Hell  re¬ 
mains  in  his  mind.”  And  the  Christian  Church,  if  she 
is  to  fulfill  her  mission  and  the  central  aim  of  her  insti¬ 
tution,  has  no  alternative  but  to  proclaim  the  truth  as  her 
Divine  Founder  committed  it  to  her.  Her  duty  is  to  con¬ 
trol  human  thought  and  speculation,  not  to  be  controlled 
and  influenced  by  them.  She  cannot  modify  any  one  of 
her  doctrines,  “or  tamper  with  the  exactness  of  its  ex¬ 
pression  even  though  by  doing  so  she  would  win  half 
the  world.  Her  mission  is  to  convert  the  nations  to  the 
truth,  not  to  adapt  the  truth  to  them,  and  every  attempt 
to  do  so  must  be  fatal  alike  to  the  cause  of  truth  and  to 
the  souls  it  is  designed  to  serve.”  1 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  our  inability  to  fully 
understand  the  doctrine  of  Hell,  or  to  reconcile  it  with 
our  imperfect  and  limited  conception  of  justice  and  of 
right,  cannot  possibly  constitute  an  argument  against  its 
truth.  We  might  with  equally  good  reason  reject  every 
other  doctrine  of  the  Christian  religion.  The  most  im¬ 
portant  and  central  of  them  escape  full  intellectual  ap¬ 
prehension.  We  see  at  best  but  as  “through  a  glass 
darkly.” 2  Indeed,  we  would  expect  that  beings  like 
ourselves  whose  nature  is  limited  and  is  under  the  “false 
#eemings”  of  the  senses  would  have  but  an  imperfect 
apprehension  of  the  truths  of  a  divine  Revelation.  There 
would  always  be  the  difficulty  of  expressing  divine  and 
eternal  things  in  human  and  changeable,  and  consequent¬ 
ly  inadequate,  terms. 

And  “let  it  be  observed  *  *  *  that  we  are  not  bound 
to  be  able  to  solve  all  difficulties  which  may  be  urged 
against  a  thesis  which  from  other  sources  is  abundantly 
proved.  Even  in  matters  of  physical  science  no  one  ex- 


1  Rev.  H.  G.  S.  Bowden’s  Preface  to  “Revealed  Religion,”  by  F. 

Hettinger,  D.  D. 

2  I  Corinth,  xiii.,  12. 


26 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  HELL 


pects  this.  There  are  difficulties  against  the  law  of  grav¬ 
itation  itself  which  cannot  be  solved,  yet  no  one  thinks 
of  doubting  the  existence  of  the  law.  Revelation  has  its 
difficulties,  but  so  has  existence  itself.  Revelation  has 
its  mysteries,  but  so  has  rationalism.  Meanwhile,  the 
certainties  which  we  rightly  hold  must  be  held  devoutly, 
and  the  difficulties  may  well  wait  their  fuller  solution  in 
the  light  of  a  brighter  day.” 


SOME  POPULAR  OBJECTIONS  AND  DIFFI¬ 
CULTIES  CONSIDERED. 


I. 

The  Goodness  of  God. 

WE  ARE  constantly  told  in  the  present  day  that 
the  sins  and  failures  of  our  moral  life  are 
chiefly  due  to  our  education  and  our  social  en¬ 
vironment.  There  is,  it  is  said,  strictly  speaking,  no 
such  thing  as  deliberate  sin.  Transgression  of  the  moral 
law  is  not  so  much  an  act  of  rebellion  against  God,  as 
a  fault  of  temperament,  and  an  innate  lack  of  that 
strength  of  character  which  is  known  to  exercise  con¬ 
trol  over  the  desires  and  tendencies  of  our  lower  nature. 
And  God  is  too  good  to  punish  man  for  what  is  after 
all  only  due  to  his  natural  and  inherited  weakness.  In 
the  progressive  development  of  the  race  the  higher  side 
of  our  nature  is  slowly  but  steadily  being  evolved,  and 
when  it  shall  have  attained  its  fuller  development,  and 
•conquered  human  weakness  and  ignorance,  sin  and  vice, 
too,  and  the  miseries  which  flow  from  them,  will  dis¬ 
appear  from  the  earth. 

This  is  the  fashionable  modern  philosophy  of  life 
which,  as  most  of  us  know,  is  professed  by  vast  numbers 
of  intelligent  and  cultivated  persons.  It  is  attractive 
because  of  its  seeming  reasonableness,  and  it  has  the 
advantage  that  it  solves  some  of  the  most  difficult  prob¬ 
lems  which  have  ever  perplexed  the  human  mind.  It 
certainly  disposes,  in  the  simplest  and  most  “natural” 
way  possible,  of  the  claims  of  the  Christian  religion,  and 
abolishes  its  unattractive  and  seemingly  unreasonable 
creed. 


27 


28 


THE  GOODNESS  OF  GOD 


This  philosophy  has  one  serious  disadvantage,  how¬ 
ever.  It  is  emphatically  contradicted  by  all  we  know 
of  God  and  of  His  mode  of  action  within  the  natural 
sphere  of  life.  We  certainly  have  no  evidence  whatever 
there  that,  because  of  His  goodness,  He  makes  allow¬ 
ance  for  our  innate  tendencies,  or  for  the  weaknesses  and 
frailties  of  our  nature.  On  the  contrary,  we  know  the 
very  opposite  to  be  the  case.  We  know  for  certain  that 
He  is  quite  capable  of  hurting  us  severely,  and  even  per¬ 
manently,  and  that  He  rigidly  and  unerringly  punishes  sin. 

In  the  natural  sphere,  disobedience  to  the  laws  of  the 
physical  life  is  invariably  followed  by  bodily  suffering 
and  pain.  Indulgence  in  forbidden  joys  and  pleasures 
brings  with  it  consequences  which  may  be  of  the  most 
far  reaching  character.  They  may  effectually  hinder 
and  paralyze  a  useful  career,  or  embitter  each  single  joy 
of  a  long  life. 

In  the  same  way  transgressions  of  the  moral  law  are 
followed  by  remorse,  by  mental  sufferings  which  are  in¬ 
finitely  greater  sometimes  than  those  endured  by  the 
body.  There  is,  we  are  told,  nothing  so  terrible  as  the 
torture  of  an  evil  conscience,  even  though  it  may  be  pos¬ 
sible  to  hide  such  an  experience  beneath  a  calm  external 
demeanor.  Murderers  have  been  known  to  deliver  them¬ 
selves  up  to  justice,  after  years  of  moral  agony,  solely 
to  escape  the  tortures  of  a  conscience  stricken  with  re¬ 
morse.  We  all  admit  that,  by  reason  of  our  moral  frail¬ 
ty,  the  pains  and  sorrows  of  our  life  are  greater  by  far 
than  its  pleasures  and  joys. 

From  the  standpoint  of  our  imperfect  knowledge 
such  suffering  may  seem  severe  and  out  of  proportion  to 
the  character  of  the  offence.  We  say:  The  transgression 
or  the  fault  was  due  to  our  ignorance,  or  perhaps  to  our 
peculiar  temperament;  the  transgressor  was  scarcely  re¬ 
sponsible.  But  there  must  surely  be  another  side  to 
the  matter,  since  the  self-evident  fact  remains  that,  in 
spite  of  His  goodness,  and  in  spite  of  our  ignorance  and 


THE  GOODNESS  OF  GOD 


29 


our  temperament,  God  certainly  does  punish.  Our  per¬ 
sonal  responsibility  must,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  be  infi¬ 
nitely  greater  than  we  commonly  suppose.  Our  moral 
intuitions  certainly  would  seem  to  support  this  view. 
Conscience,  in  its  normal  manifestations,  incessantly  and 
emphatically  witnesses  to  our  responsibility.  In  lan¬ 
guage  and  promptings  which  we  may  not  be  able  to  de¬ 
fine  and  analyze,  but  which  are  nevertheless  audible  to 
the  inner  ear,  it  never  ceases  to  remind  us  that,  what¬ 
ever  our  temperament,  moral  transgression  is  an  act  of 
the  will,  and  that,  in  spite  of  certain  natural  tendencies, 
we  are  absolutely  free,  and  may,  if  we  will,  resist  the 
evil  and  do  the  good.  And  reason  itself  surely  points 
to  the  trustworthiness  of  this  innate  faculty,  since  it  is 
impossible  to  account  for  its  origin  except  by  assuming 
the  existence  of  a  higher  moral  order  with  which  it  is 
in  correspondence. 

In  any  case,  although  we  cannot  always  reconcile 
God’s  goodness  with  His  ways  of  punishment,  we  do  not, 
on  that  account,  doubt  His  goodness,  or  deny  the  fact  of 
His  punishment.  We  admit  both,  however  great  the 
problem  may  be  which  they  present,  because  for  both 
^  there  is  abundant  and  satisfactory  evidence.  We  con¬ 
stantly  confess  that  God  is  good  even  though  He  punishes 
severely  in  the  sphere  of  the  natural  life 

Now,  if  we  can,  in  a  measure,  reconcile  God’s  good¬ 
ness  with  His  severity  here  and  now,  why  should  we  not 
be  able,  with  fuller  knowledge  and  enlarged  faculties, 
to  do  so  hereafter?  Our  difficulty  may  be  entirely  due 
to  our  ignorance,  and  to  our  imperfect,  and  therefore  mis¬ 
taken,  conception  of  things.  “It  is  possible,”  says  a  mod¬ 
ern  writer,  “that  could  we  understand  what  eternity 
really  is,  the  notion  of  the  reversal  of  the  soul’s  condition 
might  be  seen  to  involve  an  absurdity.  Moreover,  such 
a  change  does  not  appear  to  us  reconcilable  with  justice, 
for  any  temporal  retribution  however  prolonged,  would, 
if  succeeded  by  eternal  happiness,  place  all  men  practi- 


30 


THE  GOODNESS  OF  GOD 


cally  on  a  level.  For  centuries  upon  centuries  vanish  in¬ 
to  nothingness  when  compared  with  eternity.  Science, 
at  least,  lends  no  support  to  the  belief  that  a  change  can 
take  place  in  the  consequences  of  any  action  once  per¬ 
formed.  It  is  not  inexorable  severity,  and  the  continu¬ 
ance  of  chastisement,  but  mercy  and  forgiveness  which 
the  aspects  of  Nature  and  their  scientific  study  render 
difficult  of  belief.” 

“Retributive  justice,”  wrote  Cardinal  Newman,  “is 
the  very  attribute  under  which  God  is  primarily  brought 
before  us  in  the  teaching  of  our  natural  conscience.”  1 

“We  know  only  too  well  that  pain  and  agony  exist 
here.  What  ground  can  we  have  for  denying  the  pos¬ 
sibility  of  their  existence  hereafter?  Any  unnecessary 
and  useless  suffering  cannot,  of  course,  co-exist  with  a 
good  God.  But  who  can  pretend  to  know  God’s  ultimate 
end  in  creation?  That  His  purposes  cannot  contradict 
our  clear  ethical  perceptions  is  certain,  but  there  may 
be  useful  and  benevolent  ends  subserved  by  suffering 
which  we  cannot  fathom,  and  there  may  be  divine  pur¬ 
poses  which,  without  contradicting,  transcend  even  good¬ 
ness,  and  which  our  faculties  are  quite  unable  to  con¬ 
ceive  of.”  2 

In  any  case  we  recognize  God’s  goodness  even  though 
we  cannot  understand,  and  fully  reconcile  it  with  His 
methods  of  punishment.  We  know  for  certain  that  God 
is  not  incapable  of  hurting  us  even  though  He  is  good. 
And  if  this  be  so  here,  why  not  there?  The  higher  prob¬ 
ability  is,  that  laws,  similar  to  those  which  we  know  to 
be  in  operation  in  the  natural  sphere,  are  in  operation  in 
the  supernatural  sphere  also. 

Again  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  Hell  is  primarily 
not  of  God’s  creation,  but  of  man’s :  no  arbitrary  infliction 
of  a  vengeful  Deity,  but  a  law  working  in  the  inmost 


1  Grammar  of  Assent. 

2  “Nineteenth  Century.” 


THE  GOODNESS  OF  GOD 


31 


depths  of  our  moral  nature.  “Hell  is  a  law.  Just  as 
it  is  a  law  that  pent-up  water,  when  its  weight  and  force 
have  reached  a  certain  point,  breaks  its  barriers  and 
sweeps  down  upon  the  region  below  it,  so  it  is  a  law 
that  sin  or  unrighteousness  or  wilful  aversion  from  God, 
if  it  reach  the  boundary,  death,  unreformed,  will  go  on 
for  ever  so,  and  will  bring  eternal  separation  from  God, 
and  separation  in  a  spiritual  nature  means  misery.”1 

It  is  evident  that  in  the  world  of  the  inner  life 
subtle  and  highly  complex  forces  are  incessantly  at  work. 
Thoughts,  aims  and  desires  are  silently  but  unerringly 
moulding  the  character.  The  experiences  of  life,  success 
or  failure,  troubles  or  joys  and  the  manner  in  which  we 
accept  or  reject  them,  are  imperceptibly  educating  the 
heart  and  training  the  affections;  self-discipline  and  self- 
control,  exercised  or  neglected,  are  either  strengthening 
or  weakening  the  powers  of  the  will;  pure  or  impure  de¬ 
sires  and  influences,  checked  or  indulged  in,  are  dispos¬ 
ing  and  inclining  the  moral  nature  this  way  or  that. 
The  outer  life,  with  its  never-ceasing  action  upon  the 
inner  man,  is  gradually  but  steadily  creating  a  distinct 
personality,  the  essential  characteristics  of  which  may  not 
b*  clearly  known  to  ourselves,  but  must  necessarily  be 
known  to  God. 

The  modern  study  of  the  sub-conscious  man  has 
thrown  much  light  upon  these  matters  and  has  shown 
how  very  inaccurate  our  judgment  of  the  true  human 
personality  may  be  sometimes.  We  know,  for  instance, 
that  the  manifestly  cultured  and  refined  man  who,  in  his 
outward  relations  to  other  men,  is  a  paragon  of  virtue 
may,  so  far  as  his  real  inner  nature  is  concerned,  be  a 
debased  sensualist,  and  a  villainous  thief  and  ruffian. 

The  best  of  men  know  how  extremely  difficult  it  is  to 
effectually  bring  their  inner  nature  into  conformity  with 
their  moral  convictions  and  the  laws  of  the  spiritual  life. 


1  Dublin  Review  (1881),  vol.  v.,  p.  130. 


32 


THE  GOODNESS  OF  GOD 


Few  persons  probably  even  entertain  the  thought  that 
there  is  the  possibility  of  their  growing  morally  worse 
and  of  their  becoming  more  and  more  estranged  from 
God — diverted  from  the  pursuit  of  the  true  end  of  life. 
And  yet  they  may  be  steadily  degenerating,  evil  taking 
imperceptibly  a  firmer  and  more  permanent  hold  upon 
them,  their  very  lack  of  resistance  to  the  downward  ten¬ 
dencies  of  life  sweeping  them  away  from  God. 

Does  not  experience  constantly  teach  us  how  com¬ 
pletely  the  man,  who  exclusively  pursues  worldly  inter¬ 
ests,  in  the  course  of  time  becomes  the  slave  of  those 
interests?  He  would  seem  to  lose  the  very  faculty  of 
apprehending  higher  and  spiritual  realities.  The  life  of 
his  soul  becomes  paralyzed.  His  heart  becomes  chilled. 
He  becomes  insensible  to  spiritual  influences,  to  the  claims 
of  that  other  world  which  his  reason  all  the  while  tells 
him  to  be  the  true  end  and  aim  of  life.  His  inner  light 
becomes  dulled,  his  inner  ear  closed,  so  that  he  sometimes 
ends  in  denying  the  very  existence  of  that  other  world. 
And,  in  a  sense,  it  has  no  doubt  ceased  to  exist  for  him 
since  he  stands,  in  the  matter  of  his  moral  life,  wholly 
outside  it  and  apart  from  it.  But  in  such  a  case  it  is 
surely  not  God  but  his  own  weak  will,  and  his  persistently 
misdirected  aim  of  life,  which  are  shutting  him  out  from 
the  kingdom  of  Heaven.  It  is  the  law  of  sin  and  of 
death  which  is  working  the  ruin  and  destruction  of  his 
soul.  “Sow  a  thought,”  says  an  old  adage,  “and  reap 
an  action;  sow  an  action  and  reap  a  character;  sow  a 
character  and  reap  an  eternity.” 

If  such  a  man  be  hereafter  excluded  from  a  state  of 
being  with  which  he  is  in  no  sense  in  moral  correspond¬ 
ence,  and  for  the  enjoyment  of  which  he  possesses  no 
single  faculty,  can  he  in  fairness  call  the  goodness  of  God 
in  question? 

Again  it  is  urged  by  our  opponents  that  love  is  de¬ 
clared  to  be  the  chief  note  in  the  Gospel-Message.  God’s 
love  for  man  is  great.  He  desires  his  happiness.  The 


THE  GOODNESS  OF  GOD 


33 


coming  of  Christ,  His  life  of  suffering  and  humiliation 
and  His  final  sacrifice  are  evidence  of  this.  How  are  we 
to  reconcile  the  thought  of  Hell  with  such  a  love?  Does 
not  the  latter  notion  of  necessity  exclude  the  former? 
Can  we  conceive  of  a  God  of  love  ultimately  turning  his 
back  upon  any  man,  however  sinful,  and  of  abandoning 
him  to  his  fate? 

It  is  in  some  such  form  as  this  that  the  difficulty  is 
apt  to  be  stated.  And  at  first  sight  it  seems  a  formid¬ 
able  difficulty  no  doubt.  A  little  reflection,  however, 
shows  it  to  be  a  shallow  and  superficial  method  of  rea¬ 
soning. 

From  the  principles  governing  the  actions  of  men  in 
the  present  life  the  objection  stated  cannot  be  said  to  re¬ 
ceive  a  shadow  of  support.  The.  chief  or  ruler  of  a  state 
desires  the  happiness  and  well-being  of  his  subjects.  He 
puts  himself  and  his  ministers  to  an  infinite  amount  of 
trouble  to  secure  them.  But  he  does  not  on  that  ac¬ 
count  hesitate  to  punish  the  transgressor,  to  deprive  him, 
in  some  instances,  of  his  liberty,  and  even  to  punish  per¬ 
manently — to  deprive  him  of  life  itself. 

It  never  occurs  to  a  single  mind  to  question  the  good¬ 
ness  of  a  ruler  because  he  condemns  a  man  to  death. 
The  mind  sees  no  incongruity  between  the  first  quality  or 
characteristic  and  the  latter  action. 

A  good  parent  punishes  his  child  and,  in  certain  in¬ 
stances,  even  severely.  There  are  cases  on  record  in 
which  an  excellent  father  has  finally  abandoned  and  cast 
off  a  hopeless  and  degenerate  son.  The  normal  mind  has 
no  difficulty  whatever  in  reconciling  the  two — the  thought 
of  the  excellency  of  the  father  and  of  the  casting  off  of 
the  son. 

Where  then  is  the  difficulty  in  God  acting  in  a  similar 
fashion  in  His  moral  universe,  especially  when  we  bear 
in  mind  that  His  knowledge  of  human  character  and  of  the 
measure  of  individual  responsibility  is  full  and  accur¬ 
ate  ai?d  that  His  judgment  cannot  in  any  case  be  at  fault? 


34 


THE  GOODNESS  OP  GOD 


Can  we  justly  say  that  He  ceases  to  be  good  because 
the  creature  which  He  has  endowed  with  free  will  per¬ 
sistently  and  determinedly  misuses  that  will  and,  to  the 
very  last  moment  of  its  life,  lives  in  open  defiance  of  His 
known  laws? 

God’s  love  for  man  is  great,  no  doubt;  but  equally 
great  surely  must  be  His  zeal  for  the  moral  world-order 
— the  ultimate  purpose  for  which  the  universe  exists. 
He  must  hate  any  disturbance  of  it,  and  the  maintenance 
of  this  world-order  clearly  cannot  be  achieved  without 
laws  guarding  it  and  punishing  offenders.  But  all  the 
experience  of  life  proves  that  the  mere  declaration  of  the 
law  is  useless.  Men  disobey  it  in  spite  of  the  sense  of 
duty,  the  movings  of  conscience,  social  obligations  and 
self-respect. 

By  far  the  larger  number  of  thoughtful  men,  although 
they  may  not  believe  in  the  orthodox  Hell,  believe  in  some 
kind  of  Purgatory,  in  some  sort  of  punishment  for  sin 
committed  in  the  body.  Yet  how  comparatively  little  in¬ 
fluence  has  this  belief  upon  their  moral  life,  how  few 
saints  does  it  produce,  how  ineffectual  is  it  in  restrain¬ 
ing  them  from  indulging  their  appetites  and  their  pas¬ 
sions  ! 

It  is  the  authoritatively  declared  eternal  consequence 
of  the  breaking  of  the  law  which  braces  up  the  will  and 
which  calls  the  forces  of  the  higher  nature  into  activity. 

Do  we  not  know  that  looseness  of  morals  results 
wherever  the  belief  in  a  future  life  of  reward  and  punish¬ 
ment  has  disappeared?  And  those  who  attempt  to  get 
rid  of  the  doctrine  of  Hell  are  for  the  most  part  those  who 
have  also  got  rid  of  the  idea  of  sin. 

It  is  certainly  a  curious  thing  and  worthy  of  note  that 
to  the  martyrs  and  the  saints  who  live  very  close  to 
God,  Christ’s  teaching  respecting  Hell  and  the  punishment 
of  sin,  has  never  presented  any  moral  or  intellectual  diffi¬ 
culty.  It  has  never  caused  them  to  love  God  less,  to  be 


THE  GOODNESS  OP  GOD 


35 


less  willing  to  die  for  Him,  or  to  entertain  less  noble  or 
elevating  ideas  of  His  character. 

It  is  chiefly  to  the  easy-going  man  of  the  world,  to 
the  child  of  the  modern  age,  who  often  does  not  himself 
know  what  he  really  believes,  that  these  difficulties  oc¬ 
cur.  It  is  he  who  waxes  eloquent  as  to  the  unreason¬ 
ableness  of  the  doctrine. 

When  the  aged  Polycarp,  the  disciple  of  St.  John,  was 
put  to  the  torture,  he  said  to  his  torturers:  “You  threaten 
me  with  a  fire  which  only  burns  for  an  hour  and  is  then 
extinguished.  You  do  not  know  the  fire  of  the  judgment 
to  come  and  of  eternal  punishment  reserved  for  the 
wicked.” 

One  thing  we  may  surely  regard  as  certain :  A  correct 
estimate  of  the  truths  of  the  supernatural  order  cannot 
be  formed  by  the  natural  human  reason,  least  of  all  by 
the  reason  which  is  not  in  some  sense  in  rapport  with 
God  and  with  that  other-world-order. 

“The  natural  (or  sensual)  man  receiveth  (or  per- 
ceiveth)  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 1  They 
are  foolishness  to  him.  A  higher  light  is  needed  in  order 
*  to  perceive  them;  that  light  is  the  gift  of  God  and  it  is 
by  that  light  alone,  responded  to  by  a  certain  soul-cul¬ 
ture  and  soul-development,  that  he  can  see  rightly  and 
judge  justly.”  “Everything  grows  clear,”  said  Pasteur, 
“in  the  reflections  from  the  Infinite.  The  more  I  know, 
the  more  nearly  is  my  faith  that  of  the  Breton  peasant. 
Could  I  but  know  all,  I  would  have  the  faith  of  the  Breton 
peasant  woman.” 

His  intellect,  in  rapport  with  God,  evidently  did  not 
urge  those  objections  which  some  other  intellects  are 
urging  against  this  and  other  revealed  truths! 

Difficulties,  of  course,  remain  and  must  always  remain. 
It  could  not  well  be  otherwise  since  we  cannot  see  as  God 
sees.  But  it  is  certain  that  the  goodness  of  God,  as 


1 1,  Cor.  II,  14. 


36 


THE  GOODNESS  OF  GOD 


exhibited  in  the  facts  of  life,  cannot  be  urged  in  contra¬ 
diction  of  the  doctrine  of  Hell.  On  the  contrary,  His 
present  method  of  dealing  with  men  is  a  most  powerful 
argument  in  its  favor.  It  is  sentiment,  not  thoughtful 
reflection,  that  disputes  this.  “The  great  mystery  is/’  as 
Cardinal  Newman  said,  “not  that  evil  should  have  no 
end,  but  that  it  had  a  beginning.”  1 

It  is  surely  imperfect  and  distorted  vision,  then,  which 
only  recognizes  the  goodness  of  God,  but  pretends  to  see 
nothing  of  the  other  and  severe  aspects  of  His  nature. 
It  is  folly  and  wilful  blindness  to  deny  that  they  exist. 
“I  understand  not,”  wrote  Mr.  Ruskin,  “the  most  danger¬ 
ous,  because  most  attractive  form  of  modern  infidelity, 
which,  pretending  to  exalt  the  beneficence  of  the  Deity, 
degrades  it  into  a  reckless  infinitude  of  mercy  and  blind 
obliteration  of  the  work  of  sin:  and  which  does  this 
chiefly  by  dwelling  on  the  manifold  appearances  of  God’s 
kindness  on  the  face  of  creation.  Such  kindness  is,  in¬ 
deed,  everywhere  and  always  visible,  but  not  alone. 
Wrath  and  threatening  are  invariably  mingled  with  the 
love,  and  in  the  utmost  solitudes  of  Nature,  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  Hell  seems  to  me  as  legibly  declared  by  a  thousand 
spiritual  utterances  as  that  of  Heaven.  It  is  well  for 
us  to  dwell  with  thankfulness  on  the  unfolding  of  the 
flower,  and  the  falling  of  the  dew,  and  the  sleep  of  the 
green  fields  in  the  sunshine;  but  the  blasted  trunk,  the 
barren  rock,  the  moaning  of  the  bleak  winds,  the  roar  of 
the  black,  perilous,  merciless  whirlpools  of  the  mountain 
streams,  the  solemn  solitudes  of  moors  and  seas,  the  con¬ 
tinual  fading  of  all  beauty  into  darkness,  and  of  all 
strength  into  dust — have  these  no  language  for  us?  We 
may  seek  to  escape  their  teaching  by  reasonings  touch¬ 
ing  the  good  which  is  wrought  out  of  all  evil,  but  it  is 
vain  sophistry.  The  good  succeeds  to  the  evil,  as  day 
succeeds  the  night,  but  so  also  the  evil  to  the  good.  Geri- 


1  Grammar  of  Assent,  p.  415. 


THE  JUSTICE  OF  GOD 


37 


zim  and  Ebal,  birth  and  death,  light  and  darkness,  Heaven 
and  Hell,  divide  the  existence  of  man  and  his  futurity.  .  . 
The  love  of  God  is,  however,  always  shown  by  the  pre¬ 
dominance  or  greater  sum  of  good  in  the  end,  but  never 
by  the  annihilation  of  evil.  The  modern  doubts  of  eter¬ 
nal  punishment  are  not  so  much  the  consequence  of  ben¬ 
evolence  as  of  feeble  powers  of  reasoning.  Every  one 
admits  that  God  brings  good  out  of  finite  evil.  Why  not, 
therefore,  infinite  good  out  of  infinite  evil.”  1 


II. 

The  Justice  of  God. 

The  world  asks:  How  can  a  just  God  inflict  unceas¬ 
ing  punishment  for  a  temporal  offence,  even  though  it 
be  of  the  most  heinous  character?  How  can  He  punish 
finite  sin  infinitely?  Punishment  is  a  remedial  measure 
in  its  ultimate  aim.  It  is  inflicted  with  a  view  to  the 
improvement  and  restoration  of  the  offender,  not  to  his 
permanent  suffering  and  misery.  A  convict,  undergo¬ 
ing  a  long  term  of  imprisonment  for  a  grave  offence, 
may  obtain  some  alleviation  and  indulgence  upon  giving 
evidence  of  an  improved  moral  condition.  There  are 
agencies  at  work  for  still  further  helping  and  improv¬ 
ing  him  upon  his  restoration  to  the  life  of  the  world. 
The  feeling  entertained  towards  him  is  at  all  times  that 
of  pity  and  compassion.  Even  the  death  penalty  is  in¬ 
flicted  with  the  greatest  possible  reluctance,  and  as  a 
deterrent  measure  rather  than  from  any  other  motive. 
There  are  numbers  of  intelligent  persons  who,  although 
abhorring  the  crime  of  murder,  strongly  condemn  that 
penalty  on  moral  grounds,  seeing  that  by  it  the  true  end 


1  “The  Stones  of  Venice,”  Part  III.,  pp.  138-139. 


38 


THE  JUSTICE  OF  GOD 


of  punishment  is  not  attained.  It  is  under  any  circum¬ 
stances  felt  to  be  an  extreme  and  severe  measure,  in  it¬ 
self  calculated  to  fully  atone  for  the  crime  committed 
and,  in  a  sense,  to  restore  the  offender  to  God’s  favor. 

And  is  God  less  just  and  merciful  than  man?  Is  it 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  He  will  unceasingly  punish 
for  an  offence  for  which  man  would  only  punish  for  a 
season?  Might  not  such  punishment  with  right  be 
called  unjust  and  unreasonable?  Is  it  not  cruel  and  vin¬ 
dictive? 

Such  is  the  world’s  familiar  method  of  reasoning, 
and,  at  first  sight,  we  find  it  difficult  to  dispute  its  sound¬ 
ness  and  the  common-sense  which  apparently  dictates  it. 

But  a  very  brief  process  of  reflection  surely  discloses 
the  fatal  flaw  in  the  argument. 

We  have,  in  the  first  place,  to  call  to  mind  once 
more,  that  the  punishment  of  sin  is  not  so  much  God’s 
arbitrary  act,  as  a  fundamental  law  of  the  moral  uni¬ 
verse:  the  result  of  certain  circumstances — a  final  and 
necessary  link  in  the  chain  of  cause  and  effect.  It  is 
the  inevitable  consequence  of  our  moral  freedom. 

We  must,  in  the  second  place,  remember  that  it  is 
ultimately  not  a  question  of  particular  acts  or  deeds,  but 
of  a  character,  of  a  certain  definite  moral  state  and  condi¬ 
tion,  of  a  soul  rendering  itself  by  its  own  wilful  and  per¬ 
sistent  attitude  and  action  incapable  of  union  with  God. 
We  probably  attach  mistaken  ideas  to  the  words  finite 
and  infinite.  We  call  the  passing  act  of  sin  a  finite  act, 
and  cannot  perceive  how  it  can,  under  any  circumstances, 
carry  with  it  infinite  punishment.  But  it  is,  after  all,  not 
the  act  of  sin  which  brings  about  the  punishment,  but  the 
moral  character  which  lies  behind  it,  and  of  which  it  is 
the  outward  manifestation. 

The  Catholic  Church,  moreover,  teaches  (and  I  imag¬ 
ine  that  all  intelligent  Protestant  theologians  would  en¬ 
dorse  this  teaching)  that  it  is  mortal  sin  that  incurs 
the  punishment  of  Hell.  And  by  mortal  sin  is  not  meant 


THE  JUSTICE  OF  GOD 


39 


some  act  of  transgression,  committed  through  the  weak¬ 
ness  and  frailty  of  our  human  nature,  or  even  an  in¬ 
different  and  careless  state  of  moral  life,  but  sin  com¬ 
mitted  with  full  knowledge  and  consent;  or  a  state  of 
life  in  wickedly  active  opposition  to  the  known  will  and 
law  of  God.  By  mortal  sin  is  understood  that  deliberate 
and  wilful  transgression  of  law  which  is  committed  1.) 
in  an  important  and  serious  matter;  2.)  with  full  and 
clear  knowledge  of  the  responsibility  and  consequences 
involved  and  3.)  with  every  opportunity  of  making  an 
absolutely  free  choice. 

In  other  words,  it  means  an  act,  or  an  attitude  of 
mind  and  will  productive  of  or  expressed  in  this  act, 
which  severs  the  bond  of  union  existing  between  the  Cre¬ 
ator  and  the  creature  and  which  renders  any  reuniting 
of  the  bond  impossible,  since  the  creature  is  in  rebellion 
against  the  Creator  and  has,  of  his  own  free  choice, 
turned  his  back  upon  Him.  So  far  then  as  a  man  has  sin¬ 
ned  against  God,  in  full  view  of  the  punishment  incurred, 
he  may  surely  in  reason  be  said  to  deserve  that  punish¬ 
ment. 

But  have  we  not  a  certain  analogy  to  the  divine  law 
of  punishment  in  our  own  human  and  imperfect  modes  of 
measuring  out  punishment?  It  is  not,  and  cannot  be,  a 
question  of  time.  A  single  act,  such  as  a  theft  or  a 
murder  or  a  forgery,  is  committed  in  a  moment  of  time, 
yet  the  punishment  inflicted  may  extend  over  many 
years.  The  law  does  not  determine  the  amount  of  pun¬ 
ishment  by  the  time  occupied  in  committing  the  offence, 
but  by  the  nature  of  the  offence,  and  the  moral  state  and 
character  to  which  it  points.  A  judge  weighs  all  the 
evidence  which  is  before  him;  he  considers  the  entire 
life-history  of  the  offender.  A  single  act  occupying  per¬ 
haps  five  minutes  for  its  execution  but  indicating  a  cor¬ 
rupt  nature,  may  thus  involve  a  life-long  punishment, 
and  may  wreck  the  entire  earthly  career  of  the  offender. 

In  the  sphere  of  our  present  life,  therefore,  there  is 


40 


THE  JUSTICE  OF  GOD 


undoubtedly  such  a  thing  as  permanent  punishment  for 
a  mere  temporal  offence.  A  certain  law  of  fitness,  to 
which  we  yield  instinctive  obedience,  seems  to  be  at 
work,  and  to  lie  at  the  root  of  the  matter.  Thus,  a  low 
moral  character  is  universally  felt  to  be  unfit  for  a  cer¬ 
tain  higher  moral  condition  and  environment.  It  has 
no  affinity  with  them,  and  is  excluded  from  them,  not  al¬ 
ways  by  any  arbitrary  act  of  man,  but  by  common  con¬ 
sent. 

Now,  if  this  be  so  here,  in  this  present  life,  where 
change  is  still  possible,  and  where  a  transformation  can 
still  be  effected,  how  is  it  to  be  there  where  a  terminus  of 
life  is  reached,  where  the  character  is  no  longer  capable 
of  change,  and  where  it  is  a  question  of  a  permanent 
moral  state  and  condition? 

In  any  case,  it  will  be  admitted  that,  in  our  present 
life,  these  laws  are  at  work,  and  that  we  cannot  possibly 
escape  or  evade  them.  We  do  not  fully  understand  them 
ourselves  and,  from  our  standpoint,  they  may  even  ap¬ 
pear  to  us  sometimes  unfair  and  unjust.  But  it  is  cer¬ 
tain  that  they  continue  in  operation,  nevertheless,  and  in 
spite  of  our  views  and  opinions.  Is  it,  then,  unreasonable 
to  conclude  that  similar  fixed  laws  are  in  operation  in 
the  life  beyond,  and  that  there,  too,  we  shall  not  be 
able  to  evade  or  escape  them? 

Some  of  these  laws  the  Christian  Revelation  only 
hints  at;  of  others  it  speaks  in  clear  and  unmistakable 
terms.  We  do  not  like  them;  they  appear  to  us  unfair 
and  unjust,  and  they  offend  our  sense  of  the  proportion 
of  things.  But  they  may  be  just  laws  for  all  that,  and  it 
is  conceivable  that  we  shall  recognize  them  to  be  such 
when  we  have  passed  away  from  the  life  of  the  body, 
and  are  in  actual  touch  with  the  other  sphere  of  exist¬ 
ence.  Judging  from  our  knowledge  of  the  present  state 
of  things  we  may,  at  any  rate,  regard  it  as  certain  that 
they  will  continue  in  operation  whether  we  understand 
them  fully  and  approve  of  them  or  not. 


THE  JUSTICE  OF  GOD 


41 


Any  rightly-instructed  Christian  believes  that  a  spir¬ 
itual  condition,  initiated  or  induced  by  a  life  of  moral  de¬ 
pravity  and  enmity  against  God,  must  continue  unless 
conversion  and  reconciliation  take  place.  There  must  be 
a  very  definite  and  deliberate  change  of  mind  respect¬ 
ing  God,  expressing  itself  in  confession  of  sin  and  re¬ 
pentance.  The  all-important  question,  therefore,  is:  Is 
a  change  of  mind  possible  after  death? 

Christianity  says:  No!  Its  Founder  declared  over 
and  over  again  that  forgiveness  and  restoration  are  pos¬ 
sible  only  in  this  present  life.  His  offer  of  mercy  was 
always  and  distinctly  limited.  He  never  ceased  urging 
the  need  of  an  immediate  change  of  mind,  since  there  was 
a  time  when  that  change  would  be  no  longer  possible,  and 
when  the  door  of  Heaven  would  be  shut. 

One  would  have  to  quote  the  greater  part  of  the  New 
Testament,  were  one  to  attempt  to  produce  scriptural 
confiijpiation  of  this  statement. 

Science  says:  No!  Character  is  the  ultimate  and  nec¬ 
essary  result  of  certain  moral  acts  and  states.  It  is 
the  gradual  and  progressive  building-up  of  a  distinct 
organism,  and  it  is  no  more  possible  to  change  the  form 
which  it  finally  assumes  than  to  undo  the  separate  acts 
which  were  instrumental  in  its  construction. 

Human  experience,  moreover,  confirms  the  verdict  of 
science.  A  character,  it  is  well  known,  is  not  apt  to 
change  much  after  a  certain  age  and  point  of  evolution 
have  been  reached.  It  is  admittedly  a  difficult,  if  not 
an  impossible  thing,  to  undo  the  subtle  spiritual  effect 
of  a  certain  long-continued  attitude  of  the  mind. 

Now  we  have  seen  that  a  man  remaining  impenitent 
after  an  act  of  sin,  perhaps  repeating  it,  and  thereby 
hastening  the  soul’s  downward  course,  declares  enmity 
against  God.  His  normal  moral  attitude  is  an  attitude 
of  opposition  and  rebellion.  We  admit  that  in  this 
state  he  is  unfit  for  the  presence  of  God — out  of  touch 
and  affinity  with  the  sphere  of  the  pure  and  the  holy. 


42 


THE  JUSTICE  OF  GOD 


But,  if  a  change  be  impossible  after  death,  and  death 
overtake  him  while  in  this  state  of  opposition  and  re¬ 
bellion,  how  is  he  to  escape?  What  is  to  become  of 
him?  Where  is  he  to  go?  He  must,  in  that  state  of 
rebellion,  appear  before  God.  The  time  of  probation  and 
education  is  over.  He  is  in  a  sphere  where  time  is  no 
more,  where  it  is  no  longer  a  question  of  acts  and  atti¬ 
tudes  of  mind  that  can  be  undone  and  repented  of,  but 
of  a  character,  of  a  spiritual  state  which  is  the  crown 
and  ultimate  result  of  all  the  acts  and  mental  attitudes 
of  many  years. 

Can  we  not  here  trace  some  faint  outline  of  the  great 
truth?  Do  not  some  of  our  difficulties  melt  away?  Are 
they  as  great  as  they  appear  at  first  sight? 

Even  the  late  Dean  Farrar  exclaimed:  “I  believe 
that  without  holiness  no  man  can  see  the  Lord,  and 
that  no  sinner  can  be  pardoned  or  accepted  till  he  has 
repented,  and  till  his  free  will  is  in  unison  with  the  will 
of  God,  and  I  cannot  tell  whether  some  souls  may  not 
resist  God  for  ever,  and  therefore  may  not  be  for  ever 
shut  out  from  His  presence.”  1 

Again  the  term,  Eternal  Punishment,  may  be  an  im¬ 
perfect  and  inadequate  term:  it  may  not  nearly  convey 
the  truth  as  it  actually  is.  It  may  be  a  term  conveying 
the  nearest  possible  equivalent  to  a  state  or  condition  of 
which  we  cannot,  with  our  present  limitations,  form  an 
accurate  idea.  Language,  capable  only  of  expressing 
and  explaining  finite  things  can  scarcely  be  expected  to 
adequately  express  the  infinite.  May  not  the  difficulty 
therefore  be  in  the  term  rather  than  in  the  idea  and  prin¬ 
ciple  which  underlie  it,  and  which  the  term  is  meant  to 
convey?  May  it  not  be  due  to  the  fact  that  our  power  of 
thought  is  limited,  and  that  our  understandings  are  finite 
and  therefore  imperfect? 

And  it  is  surely  untrue  to  maintain  that  the  ultimate 


1  “Eternal  Hope.” 


THE  JUSTICE  OF  GOD 


43 


aim  of  all  human  punishment  is  remedial.  A  simple  ap¬ 
plication  of  this  theory  will  display  its  fallacy. 

Let  us  suppose  that  a  judge  could  only  punish  with 
a  view  to  the  improvement  of  the  offender.  All  crim¬ 
inals  might  then  be  divided  into  two  classes.  Those  in 
the  first  class  would  have  no  difficulty  in  proving  to  the 
judge  their  incorrigibility  and  hopeless  moral  condition; 
the  others  their  sincere  regret  and  repentance.  The  aim 
of  any  kind  of  punishment  would  thus  entirely  disap¬ 
pear,  and  the  accused  would  have  to  be  discharged.  But 
what  are  the  facts  of  the  case?  Punishment  falls  again 
and  again  upon  the  wholly  depraved  in  character,  in 
whom  it  has  never  been  known  to  produce  the  slightest 
change  or  improvement.  A  person  may  commit  a  certain 
offence  over  and  over  again,  he  may  already  have  spent 
the  best  part  of  his  life  inside  a  gaol,  and  both  judge 
and  jury  may  know  full  well  that  no  additional  pain 
and  punishment  will  change  his  character.  Yet  they  con¬ 
tinue  to  punish,  simply  because  the  social  and  moral  or¬ 
der  demand  it.  It  is  felt  to  be  necessary  that  certain 
acts  of  sin  and  transgression  should  be  met  by  a  cer¬ 
tain  measure  of  suffering  and  punishment. 

In  the  same  way  human  justice  punishes  the  man  who 
is  already  thoroughly  penitent,  and  who  is  not  in  the 
least  likely  to  repeat  his  offence.  It  punishes  those  who, 
for  other  reasons,  may  be  already  incapable  of  doing 
further  mischief.  But,  whatever  motives  and  ends  may 
be  assigned  to  such  punishments,  whether  they  be  inflicted 
to  act  as  a  deterrent,  or  in  some  way  to  bring  about  the 
improvement  of  society  in  general,  it  is  certain  that  un¬ 
derlying  them  is  a  kind  of  moral  necessity  which  all  men 
acknowledge,  and  to  which  they  unhesitatingly  submit. 

And  what  is  this  moral  necessity  but  an  application 
of  that  law  of  expiation  which  is  most  certainly  a  marked 
constituent  of  our  complex  moral  nature! 

Sin  clearly  is  a  disturbance  of  the  world-order.  It 
is  an  element  entering  as  a  disturbing  agent  into  the  har- 


44 


THE  JUSTICE  OF  GOD 


mony  of  the  cosmos.  It  is  fraught  with  injury  to  the 
individual  and  to  society,  quite  apart  from  its  super¬ 
natural  aspect — its  essential  nature  and  effect  from  God’s 
point  of  view. 

And,  while  one  aim  of  punishment  is  no  doubt  the 
improvement  and  restoration  of  the  offender,  another  and 
far  higher  aim  is  the  restoration  of  the  disturbed  world- 
order — expiation  of  the  offence  or  sin  committed.  We 
have  this  fully  and  most  clearly  illustrated  in  the  mys¬ 
terious  and  sometimes  quite  incomprehensible  movements 
of  the  human  conscience. 

Numerous  instances  are  on  record  in  which  a  criminal, 
whose  offence  has  remained  undetected,  and  whose  men¬ 
tal  and  moral  suffering — often  continued  over  a  long 
period  of  years — may  have  brought  him  ample  punish¬ 
ment,  cannot  find  rest  until  his  offence  is  acknowledged, 
and  his  punishment  an  official  and  public  one. 

It  might  well  be  urged  that  his  mental  tortures  and 
his  remorse  have  already  improved  him  as  well  as  pun¬ 
ished  him.  He  not  only  deeply  regrets  his  sin,  but  he 
has  made  deliberate  efforts  to  atone  for  it  by  a  better 
and  more  careful  life.  He  may  have  become  a  better 
man;  yet  he  can  find  no  rest.  His  moral  nature  clamors 
for  expiation.  He  is  only  satisfied  when  by  some  public 
admission  and  pronouncement  the  disturbed  moral  order 
has  been  restored. 

But  most  men  know  that  all  acts  of  sin  against  God 
and  man  cause  wretchedness  and  moral  disquietude  until 
they  are  expiated  in  one  way  or  another.  In  sensitive 
natures  punishment  is  desired  and  even  craved  for,  al¬ 
though  there  may  be  no  danger  of  the  facts  of  the  case 
ever  becoming  known.  And  if  such  punishment  is  se¬ 
cured  there  is  no  question  of  any  desire  for  moral  im¬ 
provement;  it  is  a  matter  of  expiation  pure  and  simple. 

I  cannot  help  feeling  that  a  great  many  foolish  things 
are  said  and  written  on  this  subject  in  our  days.  A 
simple  analysis  of  the  manifestations  of  one’s  own  con- 


THE  JUSTICE  OF  GOD 


45 


science  reveals  the  truth  about  the  matter.  And  I  am 
convinced  that  there  would  be  much  more  happiness  in 
life  if  people  recognized  this  truth  and,  if  instead  of 
craftily  evading  it,  they  obeyed  the  law  of  expiation  and 
endured  voluntary  suffering  for  sin  deliberately  com¬ 
mitted. 

It  is  perhaps  from  this  point  of  view  that  we  come 
to  form  right  ideas  of  some  of  the  recorded  mortifica¬ 
tions  of  the  saints. 

Of  course  this  manifestation  of  conscience — the  desire 
for  expiation — may  vary  greatly  in  different  natures. 
Mistaken  training  may  lessen  or  almost  efface  it.  In 
elevated  natures  it  may  attain  to  a  high  degree  of  de¬ 
velopment.  Its  roots,  however,  are  in  all  mankind. 
Hence  the  practice  of  sacrifice  by  all  primitive  as  well 
as  civilized  races  and  nations. 

Now,  is  it  conceivable,  nay  is  it  not  highly  probable, 
that  in  the  same  way  a  moral  necessity,  not  clearly  dis¬ 
cerned  by  us  in  our  present  state,  but  intimately  bound 
up  with  the  entire  order  of  the  spiritual  universe,  under¬ 
lies  the  law  of  punishment  acting  in  the  other  world? 
May  it  not  be  that,  “could  we  understand  what  eternity 
really  is,  the  notion  of  the  reversal  of  the  soul’s  condi¬ 
tion  might  be  seen  to  involve  an  absurdity?”  At  all 
events,  it  is  surely  a  mistake  to  assert,  in  view  of  what 
has  been  stated,  that  the  idea  of  a  permanent  condi¬ 
tion  of  punishment  violates  our  moral  intuitions,  and 
that  we  have  no  analogy  at  all  in  our  human  methods  of 
punishment?  And  it  is  surely  a  perilous  thing  to  deny 
its  possibility  simply  because  it  does  not  appear  to  fit  in 
with  the  dictates  of  our  limited  and  finite  reason  and 
with  our  human  notions  of  justice. 

But  the  further  question  has  been  asked :  Why  cannot 
a  just  and  merciful  God  arrange  His  punishment  in  such 
a  way  as  to  compel  the  reformation  of  the  offender? 
Why  can  He  and  does  He  not  act  upon  his  moral  nature 
in  such  a  drastic  and  coercive  fashion  as  to  render  sub- 


46 


THE  JUSTICE  OF  GOD 


mission  and  repentance  and  consequent  union  with  Him¬ 
self  inevitable? 

This  thought,  however,  brings  us  face  to  face  with 
that  greatest  of  all  the  mysteries  of  our  human  nature — 
our  free  will.  It  is  next  to  the  gift  of  conscious  life 
itself  the  most  wonderful  faculty  which  we  possess  and 
clearly  involves  the  gravest  possible  responsibility. 

But,  looking  away  from  philosophic  and  scientific 
speculation  and  regarding  the  matter  from  the  stand¬ 
point  of  experience,  it  is  evident  that  our  wills  are  free, 
and  that  in  the  moral  order  God  invites  and  impels  but 
never  compels.  The  motives  for  a  right  action  or  de¬ 
cision  are  put  before  the  will,  but  the  ultimate  decision 
is  to  be  man’s,  not  God’s.  We  are  free  and  conscious 
agents,  not  automata. 

On  the  other  hand,  admitting  that  God  is  the  author 
of  the  moral  law,  it  cannot  surely  be  a  matter  of  in¬ 
difference  to  Him  whether  men  obey  it  or  deliberately 
break  it. 

Now  a  reformation  such  as  the  above  question  sug¬ 
gests  would  be  a  compulsory  reformation,  and  there¬ 
fore  inconsistent  with  our  moral  freedom.  But  true 
moral  improvement  pre-supposes  moral  freedom  and  ex¬ 
cludes  compulsion.  The  choice,  made  by  reason  of  moral 
coercion,  would  not  be  a  free  choice.  It  could  not  pos¬ 
sibly  be  a  test  of  character  and  of  the  general  bent  of 
the  mind.  Heaven  and  the  enjoyment  of  spiritual 
things  must  ever  be  impossible  to  a  nature  that  has  been 
forced  into  them.  Real  moral  improvement  and  repent¬ 
ance  cannot  be  associated  with  the  notion  of  compulsion. 

Hence  the  possibility  remains  of  the  sinner  rebelling 
against  punishment  and  resisting  all  God’s  efforts  with 
a  view  to  his  improvement  and  remaining  unimproved. 
The  possibility  remains  of  his  deliberately  exercising  his 
will  in  opposition  to  God. 

Now  what  is  God  to  do  with  such  incorrigibles?  He 
must  either  continue  to  punish,  which  is  eternal  punish- 


THE  JUSTICE  OF  GOD 


47 


ment,  or  He  must  finally  receive  the  hopeless  case  into 
Heaven,  which  means  the  triumph  of  sin — rebellious  man 
defeating  God  and  His  ultimate  purpose  in  the  moral 
universe.  It  will  be  seen  upon  reflection  that  no  other 
conclusion  is  possible,  so  long  as  we  admit  the  freedom 
of  the  will. 

In  the  moral  order  remedial  punishment,  of  course, 
exists,  but  necessarily  only  in  a  temporal  sense — while 
the  soul  is  still  swayed  by  conflicting  motives,  and  conse¬ 
quently  still  capable  of  change.  This  must  of  necessity 
cease  when  the  character  is  finally  fixed,  and  when,  in 
the  case  of  the  sinner,  a  definite  turning-away  from  God 
has  taken  place.  The  exceeding  severity  of  some  of  God’s 
temporal  punishments  surely  involves  the  thought  of  an 
infinitely  greater  punishment  to  come.  The  latter  alone 
rationally  explains  the  former.  For  what  other  pos¬ 
sible  end  could  God  be  said  to  punish  so  severely?  Is  not 
the  peril  of  permanent  unhappiness  an  all-sufficient  end? 

But  the  secret  of  eternal  punishment  and  its  justice 
is  probably  only  fully  solved  in  an  accurate  knowledge 
of  the  real  nature  and  effect  of  sin.  In  our  present  state 
we  can  have  no  adequate  conception  as  to  the  manner  in 
which  it  affects  the  soul’s  life,  and  shapes  its  destiny. 
We  only  see  it  in  its  outward  manifestations,  in  its  gen¬ 
eral  effect  upon  character.  We  cannot  trace  its  more 
subtle  inward  operations.  In  all  probability  pride — that 
most  terrible  of  all  human  vices — lies  at  the  root  of  the 
whole  matter.  We  have  in  the  experience  of  life  some 
intimation  of  what  pride  can  do  in  the  human  soul.  It 
is  the  source  and  root  of  almost  every  other  evil  and  vice. 

“Obstinacy  in  evil  during  life,”  says  a  mystic  writer, 
“is  often  caused  by  pride  which  refuses  to  yield  and  to 
avow  mistakes.  Moreover,  man  is  under  the  influence 
of  matter  which  throws  a  veil  over  his  spiritual  percep¬ 
tions,  and  fascinates  him  with  false  seemings.  '  When 
this  veil  drops  away  from  him  his  mind  is  suddenly  flood¬ 
ed  with  light,  and  he  is  sobered  from  the  intoxication.” 


48  WHY  SHOULD  DEATH  TERMINATE  OUR  PROBATION? 

The  terms  in  which  sin  is  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  admit  of  no  compromise,  and  certainly  lead  us  to 
infer  that  our  conceptions  of  its  nature  and  effects  are 
most  imperfect  and  inadequate.  Christ  declared  sin  to 
be  the  death  of  the  soul.  He  pronounced  no  sacrifice  to 
be  too  great  in  the  effort  to  escape  it  and  to  overcome  it. 
It  was  better,  He  said,  that  we  should  pluck  out  our  eyes 
than  that  they  should  lead  us  into  sin.  The  Apostles 
echoed  these  thoughts.  The  early  martyrs  experienced 
their  truth,  and  had  an  intense  conviction  of  the  reality  of 
Hell  and  its  punishments.  Whenever  men  have  grown 
in  spiritual  understanding  and  discernment,  and  have  by 
prayer  and  subjugation  of  the  lower  self  cultivated  the 
higher  self,  they  have  also  changed  their  view  as  to  the 
real  nature  and  consequence  of  sin.  Is  it  unreasonable 
to  conclude  that  such  a  changed  view  is,  after  all,  the 
correct  one? 

“Immediately  after  death,”  declares  another  mystic, 
“that  natural  language  which  lies  in  every  man  is  re¬ 
vealed  to  him,  and  he  reads  at  once  his  whole  life,  with 
its  acts  and  omissions,  in  its  character.  The  account  is 
engraven  on  his  heart  in  figures  of  fire,  and  woe  to  him 
whose  demerits  weigh  down  the  balance,  who  has  died 
unrepentant  in  his  sins,  untrusting  in  God,  and  unbeliev¬ 
ing  in  his  Redeemer.” 


III. 

Why  Should  Death  Be  Supposed  to  Terminate  the 
Time  of  Our  Probation? 

This  is  a  question  which  has  recently  been  asked  with 
much  Seriousness,  and  which  has,  in  innumerable  in¬ 
stances,  received  a  favorable  answer  from  the  Pulpit. 
Such  an  answer  is  probably  felt  to  offer  the  only  pos- 


WHY  SHOULD  DEATH  TERMINATE  OUR  PROBATION?  49 


sible  compromise  between  the  clear  statements  of  the 
New  Testament  and  the  claims  of  “enlightened”  reason, 
and  it  crtainly  opens  an  acceptable  way  of  escape  out 
of  a  great  difficulty.  It  thus  becomes  possible  for  a 
modern  “liberal”  Christian  to  adhere  to  the  teaching 
of  Holy  Scripture  respecting  the  punishment  of  Hell  and 
at  the  same  time  to  empty  that  teaching  of  its  meaning 
by  prolonging  man’s  time  of  probation,  and,  consequently, 
his  chances  of  salvation  and  restoration,  indefinitely. 

It  is  but  reasonable  to  assume,  it  is  argued,  that  those 
endless  multitudes  who  have  never  had  an  opportunity  in 
this  life  of  fully  understanding  and  accepting  the  Gospel 
message,  and  of  whom  it  may  safely  be  said  that  they 
would  have  accepted  it  had  they  clearly  understood  it, 
will  have  that  opportunity  given  them  in  the  life  to 
come.  Is  it  conceivable  that  these  multitudes  will  be 
cast  away  without  any  such  further  probation?  In 
view  of  the  experiences  of  life,  and  of  the  difficulties 
under  which  men  are  known  to  labor  with  respect  to  spir¬ 
itual  matters,  does  not  the  very  thought  offend  our  moral 
sense  and  our  reason?  In  a  thousand  instances  is  not 
life  far  too  short  to  admit  of  anything  like  a  completed 
moral  education  and  probation?  Are  not  thousands  cut 
down  in  the  very  flower  of  their  life,  when  the  best 
powers  of  their  souls  and  minds  are  but  beginning  to 
unfold  themselves,  and  when  the  character  may  be  said 
to  be  only  in  the  process  of  formation? 

Is  it  not  more  than  probable,  too,  that  with  the  in¬ 
crease  of  light,  shed  upon  the  soul  in  the  other  state,  a 
change  will  pass  over  the  soul’s  vision,  and  that  a 
greater  and  more  powerful  impulse  will  be  given  to  spir¬ 
itual  effort  and  endeavor?  When  men  who  have  lived 
evil  lives  here  on  earth  shall  have  come  to  see  more 
clearly  what  consequences  their  deeds  involve,  are  they 
not  much  more  likely  to  repent,  and  thus,  in  the  course  of 
time,  to  be  restored  to  God’s  favor? 

The  majority  of  us  are  familiar  with  popular  ques- 


50  WHY  SHOULD  DEATH  TERMINATE  OUR  PROBATION? 

tions  and  statements  of  this  character.  They  may  be 
said  to  be  in  everybody’s  mouth.  They  have  every  ap¬ 
pearance  of  plausibility  and  reasonableness,  and  their 
acceptance  certainly  tends  to  relieve  the  human  spirit  of 
a  weight  of  which  it  is  only  too  conscious. 

But  ought  we  not  to  distrust  them  for  that  very  rea¬ 
son?  Is  the  human  mind,  in  its  natural  state,  a  safe 
guide  in  matters  pertaining  to  the  supernatural  order? 
Is  man  likely  unaidedly  to  discern  and  accept  a  truth 
which  is  constantly  opposing  itself  to  his  normal  desires 
and  inclinations?  Is  he  not  much  more  likely  to  make 
every  effort  to  get  rid  of  it?  Reflection  has  shown  us 
that  he  is  unquestionably  mistaken  in  the  matter  of  his 
notions  respecting  sin,  that  his  views  in  this  direction 
are  false  and  distorted,  and  that  his  philosophy  is  con¬ 
structed  upon  his  lower  dictates  and  promptings.  Is  it 
not  more  than  probable  that,  in  this  matter,  too,  he  is 
mistaken,  and  that  in  his  contention  he  is  but  echoing 
his  own  lower  desires?  Would  he  not  be  altogether  the 
gainer  if  it  could  be  shown  that  his  soul’s  probation  was 
to  be  prolonged  beyond  the  term  of  his  natural  life? 
Might  it  not  then  be  justifiable  for  him  to  take  a  much 
less  serious  view  of  life,  and,  without  ceasing  to  be  a 
Christian  in  thought,  extract  from  life  an  infinitely 
greater  measure  of  enjoyment? 

Christian  thinkers  have  cause  to  be  on  their  guard 
against  these  supposed  dictates  of  human  reason.  There 
is  about  them  the  savor  of  that  false  kind  of  philosophy 
which  is  the  constant  product  of  the  mind  whose  judg¬ 
ments  the  falling  away  from  God  has  darkened  and  per¬ 
verted. 

When  we  come  to  an  examination  of  the  contention 
itself,  we  are  at  once  met  by  one  great  and  insuperable 
difficulty.  “Not  a  single  passage  can  be  cited,  either 
from  the  Old  Testament  or  from  the  New,  which  even 
hints  at  a  continued  or  second  probation  after  death. 
“Those  which  may  be  quoted  as  bearing  on  the  continued 


WHY  SHOULD  DEATH  TERMINATE  OUR  PROBATION?  51 


cleansing  and  perfecting  of  the  elect  *  *  *  do  not  speak 
of  them  as  still  on  their  trial.”  This  is  a  fact  which 
is  admitted  by  all  careful  students  of  this  subject  who 
approach  it  with  an  open  mind,  and  it  is  one  which 
any  intelligent  person  may  easily  verify  for  himself. 
The  idea,  in  short,  is  not  contained  in  the  Sacred  Scrip¬ 
tures,  unless,  indeed,  it  be  extracted  from  an  expression 
here  and  there,  made  to  yield  such  a  meaning  by  a 
strained  and  artificial  interpretation.  Such  exegetical 
tricks,  however,  can  scarcely  satisfy  honest  minds. 
Fairly  interpreted,  all  Christ’s  statements  respecting  the 
period  of  man’s  probation  can  have  but  one  meaning,  and 
that  points  clearly  and  emphatically  in  the  opposite  di¬ 
rection. 

And  is  it  conceivable  that,  if  it  were  otherwise,  our 
Lord  would  have  been  silent  on  the  subject,  knowing,  as 
He  must  have  known,  the  moral  difficulties  which  the 
doctrine  involves,  and  the  opposition  which  it  was  bound 
to  encounter?  Is  it  at  all  likely  that,  rather  than  dis¬ 
close  such  an  important  truth  to  us,  He  should  have 
taken  pains  to  hide  it,  and  to  deliberately  mislead  us? 
It  is  unreasonable,  if  not  irreverent,  even  to  entertain 
such  a  thought,  and  to  attempt  to  reconcile  it  with  all 
the  other  utterances  so  clearly  pointing  the  opposite  way. 
The  impossibility  of  such  a  compromise  becomes  appar¬ 
ent  immediately  we  examine  these  utterances  with  the 
thought  of  a  continued  probation  after  death  in  the 
mind. 

And  can  we  forget  that  most  solemn  parable  of  Dives 
and  Lazarus,  uttered  by  Christ  Himself  for  the  express 
purpose,  it  would  appear,  of  warning  us  “that  this  pres¬ 
ent  life  is  the  time  of  trial,  and  that  after  death  it  will 
be  too  late  to  change.” 

It  is  possible,  of  course,  to  pervert  reason,  and  to 
empty  the  simplest  human  language  of  its  plain  and  self- 
evident  meaning — some  modern  rationalizing  theologians 
are  expert  hands  at  this  kind  of  work — but  do  men  of 


52  WHY  SHOULD  DEATH  TERMINATE  OUR  PROBATION? 

common  sense  and  of  unperverted  judgment  discover  a 
way  of  compromise?  Can  they  reconcile  the  belief  in 
continued  probation  after  death  with  the  lesson  and  warn¬ 
ing  conveyed  in  this  one  parable? 

And  how  does  the  matter  really  look  from  the 
standpoint  of  fact  and  human  experience?  In  contem¬ 
plating  the  human  mind  we  have  to  distinguish,  and  do 
distinguish,  between  two  conditions:  between  a  state  of 
development  and  a  state  of  maturity.  A  condition  of 
development  must  some  time  or  other  reach  its  end;  it 
cannot  go  on  indefinitely.  In  a  certain  sense  man’s  edu¬ 
cation,  in  the  temporal  sphere,  may  perhaps  be  said  to 
go  on  indefinitely,  and  to  continue  during  the  whole  of 
life;  but  this  is  true  only  in  respect  of  the  intellectual 
side  of  his  nature.  He  is  apt  to  widen  his  views,  and  to 
change  his  mind,  as  he  gathers  additional  experience  and 
knowledge.  But  it  is  not  so  in  the  moral  sphere.  There 
the  process  of  change  and  improvement  is,  for  the  most 
part,  limited  to  the  period  of  development,  and  a  state  of 
maturity  is  reached  after  a  time.  At  a  certain  age,  or 
after  certain  moral  experiences  of  life,  the  character  is 
apt  to  become  definitely  fixed,  and  by  it  the  soul’s  life 
in  this  world  is  determined.  We  speak  of  a  man  as  hav¬ 
ing  a  strong  or  a  weak  character,  and  our  conception  is 
that  of  a  point  reached,  of  a  definite  moral  state  and  con¬ 
dition  attained.  Indeed  the  intellectual  difficulty  would 
seem  to  lie  altogether  the  other  way.  We  experience  it  in 
the  effort  to  conceive  of  a  great  moral  change  taking 
place  after  a  certain  age  and  condition  of  development 
have  been  reached :  after  a  man’s  character  is  formed . 

And  what  ultimately  determines  and  shapes  character 
one  way  or  the  other  is,  of  course,  the  mind’s  attitude  to¬ 
ward  the  supernatural — spiritual  principles  and  interests 
cultivated  or  neglected,  life  and  conduct  regulated  accord¬ 
ing  to  God’s  will  and  law,  or  according  to  conventional 
standards  and  worldly  maxims. 

The  educational  process  of  earth  must  necessarily 


WHY  SHOULD  DEATH  TERMINATE  OUR  PROBATION?  53 


either  form  a  natural  man,  or  it  must  form  a  spiritual 
man. 

Now  admitting,  as  we  must  admit,  that  death  is  in  any 
case  some  kind  of  terminus,  since  the  soul’s  environment 
i3  completely  changed,  what  reason  have  we  for  suppos¬ 
ing  that  God  will  bring  further  and  extraordinary  influ¬ 
ences  to  bear  upon  that  soul  in  its  separated  state? 

Scripture,  as  we  have  seen,  lends  no  support  to  any 
such  supposition.  The  observations  of  life,  on  the  other 
hand,  point  to  a  tendency  to  fixedness  of  character  which 
neither  pain  nor  mental  or  moral  suffering,  nor  the 
agonies  of  death  itself  would  seem  to  affect  in  some  in¬ 
stances.  The  will  has  resisted  the  invitation  to  re¬ 
pentance  coming  from  without;  it  has  resisted  the  ad¬ 
monitions  of  conscience  coming  from  within.  It  has  con¬ 
sequently  missed  the  very  aim  and  purpose  of  life.  But 
what  meaning  and  rationale  would  there  be  in  life  if  a 
reversal  of  this  process  could  be  conceived  to  be  com¬ 
mencing  immediately  after  death?  In  that  case  why  was 
man  put  through  the  painful  experience  of  earth-life  at 
all?  If  a  probation  be  possible  in  the  separated  state, 
why  was  he  not  born  into  that  state;  why  did  it  not 
commence  immediately  upon  his  creation? 

But,  putting  aside  for  a  moment  the  question  of  the 
possibility  or  impossibility  of  a  change  of  mind  after 
death,  can  there  be  a  true  test  of  the  will  in  the  separated 
state? 

Could  any  response  of  man  to  external  invitation  or 
internal  monition  be  of  the  same  moral  value  as  a  re¬ 
sponse  made  in  the  body  and  amidst  the  earthly  environ¬ 
ment?  A  test  of  will  surely  can  only  be  conceived  to 
exist  where  two  conflicting  attractions  exist.  But,  in  the 
other  state,  the  earthly  life  and  its  fascinations  will  have 
ceased  to  be;  the  bodily  senses  will  no  longer  be  alluring 
the  will;  all  mundane  attractions  will  have  passed  away. 
The  spiritual  end  will  be  seen  to  be  the  only  rational 
end  of  life  and  the  only  end  now  possible.  Can  a  God- 


54  WHY  SHOULD  DEATH  TERMINATE  OUR  PROBATION? 

ward  decision  under  such  conditions  be  of  any  moral 
value?  Could  it  be  said  to  be  a  free  choice  of  the  will? 
Can  it  be  called  a  choice  at  all?  Is  it  not  more  than  prob¬ 
able  that  any  such  choice  would  be  reversed  could  the 
soul  by  any  chance  regain  possession  of  its  body,  and 
suffer  the  attractions  of  the  old  environment? 

It  is  a  fact  well  known  to  all  students  of  psychic 
phenomena  that  spirits  claiming  to  be  the  unhappy  and 
disappointed  souls  of  the  dead,  seek  communication  with 
the  living  and  endeavor  to  incorporate  themselves  in  some 
body,  so  that  they  may  re-live  their  old  earth-life.  The 
objective  reality  of  these  communications  can  no  longer 
be  denied.  Have  we  in  some  of  these  phenomena,  occur¬ 
ring  spontaneously,  a  confirmation  of  the  truth  of  the 
doctrine  we  are  considering?  Is  the  other  world  itself 
bearing  witness  to  the  truth  of  Christ’s  teaching  in  an 
age  of  flippant  unbelief  and  apostasy? 

In  any  case  it  will  be  admitted  that  there  can  be  no 
merit  and  no  evidence  of  good-will  in  choosing  God  where 
no  other  attractions  exist  to  draw  the  soul.  An  accept¬ 
ance,  on  the  part  of  the  world-loving  soul,  of  conditions 
which  leave  no  possible  alternative  would  be  of  the  nature 
of  a  forced  surrender.  It  could  not  be  an  exercise  of 
free-will.  And  a  change  of  mind,  under  such  circum¬ 
stances,  could  neither  bring  happiness,  nor  could  it  pro¬ 
duce  a  true  spiritual  development.  All  purification  is 
progressive  and  consists  in  a  resistance  to  adverse  and 
opposing  conditions.  It  is  effected  by  the  constant  ac¬ 
tion  of  the  free  will,  clearly  recognizing  and  heartily 
and  consistently  embracing  and  cultivating  the  higher 
good.  But  man,  being  created  a  composite  being,  such 
a  process  becomes  unthinkable  in  the  separated  state. 

Some  people  seem  to  imagine  that  the  act  of  dying 
has  in  it  some  peculiar  sanctifying  virtue,  but  what  is 
there  in  physical  death  that  should  lead  us  to  suppose 
this?  It  is  but  a  casting  aside  of  the  soul’s  outer  gar¬ 
ment,  its  removal  from  its  earthly  environment.  Physi- 


WHY  SHOULD  DEATH  TERMINATE  OUR  PROBATION?  55 


cal  death,  terminating  the  temporal  state  and  the  sea¬ 
son  of  admitting  of  a  change  of  mind  and  disposition,  of 
undoing  unkindly  deeds  and  unsaying  hard  words,  is, 
from  the  standpoint  of  our  present  knowledge,  far  more 
likely  to  end  the  time  of  probation  than  to  prolong  it. 
The  soul,  removed  from  its  earthly  tenement,  and  the 
natural  sphere  of  its  operations,  is  certainly,  so  far  as 
we  know,  no  longer  in  a  position  to  undo  the  past  even  if 
it  would.  It  has  ceased  to  be  in  touch  with  it  and  its 
separate  events,  while  their  moral  results  which  have 
gone  to  form  the  character,  are  permanent  and  abiding 
realities. 

But,  admitting  for  a  moment  the  possibility  of  a 
moral  change  after  death,  have  we  any  good  ground  for 
supposing  that  additional  light  and  knowledge  are  likely 
to  effect  it?  Do  we  not  already  know  far  more  than  we 
practise?  The  devils  believe  and  tremble,  but  are  not 
thereby  softened  or  sanctified.  In  what  imaginable  way 
can  truth  be  so  put  as  to  reach  the  heart  that  has  be¬ 
come  hardened? 

It  is  instructive  to  note  that  even  thoughtful  ration¬ 
alists,  while  waging  war  against  the  orthodox  doctrine  of 
Hell  and  the  belief  in  a  future  condition  of  misery,  are 
constrained,  by  their  study  of  mans’  psychic  nature,  to 
insist  upon  a  state  after  death  which  amounts  to  much 
the  same  thing.  They  fully  recognize  the  law  which  is  at 
work  and  by  the  normal  operations  of  which  a  condition 
of  soul  is  apt  to  be  created  which  is  scarcely  likely  to 
be  effected  by  additional  influences  brought  to  bear  up¬ 
on  it. 

In  an  article  on  “the  Nature  of  Retribution”  which 
appeared  in  the  “Light  of  Reason”  some  time  ago,  the 
writer  said: 

“It  is  a  well-known  fact  of  daily  life  that  the  thing 
we  do  for  the  first  time  with  difficulty  is  done  the  tenth 
or  the  hundredth  time  with  ease,  until  at  last  the  doing 
of  it  is  second  nature.  The  nervous  system  becomes  the 


56  WHY  SHOULD  DEATH  TERMINATE  OUR  PROBATION? 

willing  partner  of  the  moral  life  and,  little  by  little,  the 
chains  of  an  acquired  tendency  are  bound  round  the  vic¬ 
tim,  and  ‘he  that  is  unrighteous’  brings  forth  fruit  after 
his  kind. 

“This  is  true  of  the  physical,  the  mental,  and  the 
moral  life.  The  disused  limb  becomes  the  atrophied 
limb;  the  unused  faculty  means  loss  of  that  faculty;  the 
rein  given  to  the  passions  today  means  loss  of  con¬ 
trolling  power  tomorrow. 

“We  make  the  fight  harder  for  ourselves  and  the  con¬ 
ditions  harder  to  grapple  with  and  overcome.  As,  one 
by  one,  the  cells  of  the  physical  organism  die,  they  are 
replaced  by  new  ones  fashioned  in  accordance  with  the 
tenor  of  the  mind  and  the  habit  of  the  life,  so  that  in 
our  flesh  we  reap  the  consequence  of  our  thought.  As, 
one  by  one,  wrong  choices  are  made,  the  evil  thought  or 
the  evil  action  tends  to  become  less  volitional  and  more 
automatic,  and  our  nervous  system  is  no  longer  our  ser¬ 
vant,  but  our  tyrant.  Thus  we  become  bound  in  the 
chains  of  habit,  and  habit  is  only  another  name  for 
character,  and  character  may  be  only  another  name  for 
retribution. 

“It  is  a  terrible  thought.  None  of  the  hells  invented 
by  theologic  superstition  is  half  so  awful  as  this.” 

“Let  us  remember,”  says  a  writer  already  quoted, 
“what  is  one  of  the  tritest  truisms  in  ethics,  the  essen¬ 
tial  tendency  of  habits  to  become  inveterate.  Every  stu¬ 
dent  of  Aristotle  will  be  familiar  with  the  principle,  and 
all  experience  confirms  it.  But  there  is  no  reason  for 
supposing  that  the  laws  of  our  moral  being  will  be  revo¬ 
lutionized  in  a  future  state.  Granting,  therefore,  for 
argument’s  sake,  that  the  time  of  probation  may  be  in¬ 
definitely  prolonged  after  death,  what  right  have  we  to 
assume  that  ‘he  who  is  filthy  will  not  be  filthy  still’?  So 
far  as  we  have  any  data  for  judging,  the  contrary  is  far 
more  probable.  *  *  *  How  can  we  be  sure,  to  say  the  very 
least  that  the  will,  which  in  this  world  remained  ob- 


WHY  SHOULD  DEATH  TERMINATE  OUR  PROBATION?  57 


durate  to  the  last,  will  certainly  in  the  next  world  yield 
to  the  gracious  influence  it  had  finally  rejected  here?” 

Again  it  must  be  clear  upon  reflection,  that  if,  in  ac¬ 
cordance  with  a  law  of  God,  man’s  trial-time  were  pro¬ 
longed  indefinitely,  additional  agencies  being  constantly 
brought  to  bear  upon  him,  it  would  be  within  man’s 
power  to  defy  God.  He  would,  in  a  sense,  be  compelling 
God  to  endure  his  sin  and  to  bear  with  the  manifesta¬ 
tion  of  his  perverse  and  rebellious  will.  Such  a  law 
would  be  putting  God  at  the  sinner’s  mercy.  The  very 
knowledge  that  a  return  to  God  is  possible  whenever  he 
should  begin  to  weary  of  his  deliberate  opposition,  would 
tend  to  confirm  a  hardened  nature  in  that  opposition, 
and  would  fill  the  spiritual  universe  with  beings  whose 
ultimate  destiny  would  be  for  ever  trembling  in  the  bal¬ 
ance. 

• 

But  such  a  state  of  being  is  unthinkable  in  a  universe 
of  order  where,  for  good  or  evil,  all  things  created  tend, 
after  a  period  of  development,  to  reach  some  final  and 
fixed  state  of  existence. 

Again  it  might  be  asked:  Is  it  not  conceivable  that 
the  pain,  consequent  upon  the  severity  of  the  judgment 
after  death,  will  produce  the  requisite  moral  change? 
This,  however,  is  at  best  a  purely  gratuitous  hypothesis. 

Pain  in  itself  has  no  converting  power.  Suffering 
willingly  endured  has,  to  be  sure,  under  the  Gospel  dis¬ 
pensation,  a  salutary,  what  may  be  called  a  kind  of  sac¬ 
ramental  efficacy,  derived  from  the  passion  of  Christ. 
But  it  works  ex  opere  operantis  only;  its  effect  depends 
wholly  on  the  use  that  is  made  of  it,  and  it  does  but 
harden  and  brutalize  those  whom  it  fails  to  sanctify. 
There  is  a  terrible  truth,  which  experience  abundantly 
bears  out,  in  those  inspired  words,  applicable  alike  to 
the  state  of  obstinate  sinners  in  this  life,  and  of  those 
who  are  finally  confirmed  in  their  evil  will  in  the  next: 
“And  they  gnawed  their  tongues  for  pain,  and  blasphemed 


58  WHY  SHOULD  DEATH  TERMINATE  OUR  PROBATION? 

the  God  of  Heaven  because  of  their  pain  and  their  sores, 
and  repented  not  of  their  deeds.” 1 

“A  soldier’s  life  is  a  hard  and  painful  one,  but  the 
army  is  no  school  of  saints.  In  this  life  bad  men  are 
usually  made  worse  by  pain ;  why  should  we  assume  that 
it  will  certainly  transform  them  in  the  next?  I  am 
speaking,  be  it  remembered,  of  those  who  die  uncon¬ 
verted,  not  of  the  imperfect  who  die  with  the  germs  of 
faith  and  repentance,  however  invisible  to  human  sight, 
already  in  their  souls,  and  whose  initial  conversion  is 
perfected  in  the  ‘willing  agony’  of  purgatorial  chastise¬ 
ment.  And  I  repeat,  that  there  is  no  ground  whatever 
for  assuming  that  the  discipline  of  pain,  which  only  hard¬ 
ened  them  on  earth,  will  convert  and  purify  them  in  the 
world  beyond  the  grave.”  2 

Dr.  Farrar,  too,  fully  admitted  this.  He  wrote: 
“Do  not  think  that  repentance  is  an  easy  thing;  and  be 
quite  sure  of  this,  that  the  longer  it  is  delayed,  the  less 
easy  does  it  become,  and  the  more  terrible  are  the  con- 
squences,  both  here  and  hereafter,  which  the  delay  in¬ 
volves.  3 

“In  Hell,”  writes  Baron  von  Hiigel,  “the  deliberate 
active  will  is  bad  from  the  first  and  only  various  par¬ 
tially  deliberate  wishes  and  tendencies  are  good,  but  can¬ 
not  be  brought  to  fruition  in  a  full  virtuous  determina¬ 
tion  of  the  dominant  character  of  the  soul  and  hence  this 
state  has  no  end.”  4 

How  frequently  is  the  permanence  and  fixedness  of 
character  demonstrated  in  the  phenomenon  of  what  is 
termed  “death -bed  repentance”?  A  death-bed  repent¬ 
ance  may,  of  course,  be  perfectly  sincere  and  effective, 
but  so  far  as  human  judgment  can  go,  it  often  is  not  so. 
All  priests  and  ministers  of  religion  know  of  instances  in 


1  Apocalypse,  xvi.  io-ii. 

2  H.  N.  Orenham,  pp.  59-60. 

3  “Eternal  Hope,”  p.  152. 

4  The  Mystical  Element  of  Religion. 


WHY  SHOULD  DEATH  TERMINATE  OUR  PROBATION?  59 


which  the  moral  experiences,  passed  through  during  a 
critical  illness,  and  the  admissions  made,  are  disowned 
when  recovery  unexpectedly  takes  place.  How  often  is 
the  supposed  penitent  positively  ashamed  of  the  “weak¬ 
ness”  he  has  shown  and  returns  to  his  former  attitude 
and  mode  of  life?  The  character  was  too  definitely 
formed  to  admit  of  any  appreciable  change.  I  know  of 
a  case  in  which  the  supposed  penitent  crossed  the  street 
when  he  met  the  man  to  whom  he  had  made  a  manifesta¬ 
tion  of  conscience  when  he  believed  himself  to  be  on  his 
death-bed ! 

But  it  is  often  urged  (and  this  is  perhaps  one  of  the 
most  familiar  difficulties)  that  the  time  alloted  to  us  as 
the  period  of  our  probation  is  too  short;  “that  the  long¬ 
est  and  most  eventful  career  does  not  give  full  play  to  the 
latent  capabilities  of  even  a  very  ordinary  character.” 
This  difficulty,  however,  could  only  be  maintained  if  it 
could  be  shown  that  the  time  of  our  life,  given  us  for 
our  moral  regeneration,  is  too  short  in  proportion  to  our 
capabilities  and  opportunities.  And  who  will  presume  to 
judge  accurately  in  such  a  difficult  matter?  Who  can 
see  as  God  sees?  He  who  accurately  knows  our  capabili¬ 
ties,  and  who  has  appointed  our  time  of  probation,  is 
surely  free  to  decide  when  it  is  to  terminate  for  each  one 
of  us.  And  it  cannot  be  denied  that,  considering  the 
moral  stimulus  which  it  involves,  it  was  necessary  that 
God,  in  His  wisdom,  should  leave  us  in  ignorance  as  to 
the  exact  time  of  its  termination. 

Indeed  the  plea  as  to  the  shortness  of  time  is  a  subtle 
and  perilous  self-deception.  There  is  a  certain  appear¬ 
ance  of  reasonableness  about  it  at  first  sight;  but  it  van¬ 
ishes  when  the  matter  is  really  carefully  looked  into  and 
the  difficulty  analyzed.  It  is  not,  let  it  be  borne  in 
mind,  a  question  of  certain  acts  and  things  done  or  left 
undone,  but  of  a  character  formed — finally  formed  per¬ 
haps  in  a  moment  of  time.  This  moment  may  come 
early  in  life,  it  my  come  late.  No  mortal  man  can  tell 


60  WHY  SHOULD  DEATH  TERMINATE  OUR  PROBATION? 


when  the  decisive  crisis  in  the  soul’s  life  is  reached  from 
God’s  point  of  view.  “He  to  whom  a  thousand  years  are 
as  one  day  can,  if  it  so  please  Him,  as  infallibly  test  the 
entire  bent  and  purpose  of  the  will  by  a  single  trial  as 
after  a  course  prolonged  through  countless  ages  *  *  *” 
If  the  period  of  probation  is  to  be  limited  at  all,  it 
matters  nothing  to  the  unerring  judgment  of  the  All¬ 
wise  at  what  precise  point  the  term  is  fixed.  He  alone 
can  know  what  is  in  the  heart  of  man.  One  thought,  one 
decision,  one  action  sometimes  sums  up  the  complex 
moral  life  extending  over  a  course  of  years,  and,  so  far 
as  we  know,  that  thought  or  decision  may  fix  the  char¬ 
acter.  The  probability,  indeed,  from  our  point  of  view, 
is  that  it  does  so.  And  from  this  standpoint  our  time 
of  probation  is  really  much  longer  than  would  seem 
necessary. 

In  any  case  a  change  of  mind  while  still  in  the  body, 
a  turning  of  the  will  to  God  and  a  resolution  to  obey 
His  law  and  to  live  for  Him,  presents  no  difficulties. 
It  is  a  moral  act,  an  attitude  of  the  soul  requiring  for 
its  manifestation  a  mere  fraction  of  time,  and,  by  that 
fraction  of  time  rightly  employed,  the  soul  may  secure 
its  escape. 

No  right-thinking  man  will  be  disposed  to  deny  that 
with  the  light,  the  opportunities  and  the  aids  vouchsafed 
to  him,  he  might  at  any  given  moment  be  a  much  better 
man  that  he  really  is.  Life,  broadly  speaking,  is  long 
enough  to  enable  a  man  to  achieve  his  aims  in  the  tem¬ 
poral  order.  It  is  not  too  short  to  enable  him  to  achieve 
its  end  or  purpose  in  the  spiritual  order. 

In  most  instances  it  affords  the  necessary  time,  oppor¬ 
tunity,  and  means  for  this  purpose.  Consider  with  what 
intenseness  and  persistence  young  and  old  strive  after 
earthly  distinctions  and  possessions.  Think  of  the  en¬ 
ergy,  the  courage,  the  determination,  the  restless  perse¬ 
verance  with  which  day  by  day,  for  thirty,  forty  or 
fifty  years,  men  pursue  their  temporal  ideals,  how  inces- 


WHY  SHOULD  DEATH  TERMINATE  OUR  PROBATION?  61 


santly  the  one  all-absorbing  aim  occupies  the  mind,  how 
they  trample  under  foot  all  considerations  of  health  and 
personal  well-being — how,  to  the  very  last  hour  of  life, 
the  interest  of  their  business  or  profession  occupies  their 
thoughts.  Can  any  sane  man  presume  to  say  that  a  life, 
so  full  of  restless  enterprise  and  achievement,  is  too  short 
to  develop  the  powers  of  the  soul,  to  rightly  train  and 
direct  the  will  and  to  seek  the  attainment  of  that  “holi¬ 
ness  without  which  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord”? 

A  hundredth  part  surely  of  the  energy  displayed  would 
be  sufficient  to  achieve  the  all-important  end. 

But  with  all  the  means  of  grace  persistently  and  con¬ 
sistently  neglected,  with  God  and  His  claims  ignored,  de¬ 
spised  and  forgotten,  can  man  in  reason  claim  forgive¬ 
ness  because  of  his  brief  opportunity  and  compel  God  to 
let  him  achieve  his  end  in  spite  of  his  neglect  and  rebel¬ 
lion?  Can  the  Creator  of  the  world  be  accused  of  vin¬ 
dictiveness  and  cruelty  because  He  will  not  regulate 
his  actions  or  modify  the  operation  of  His  laws  according 
to  the  caprice  and  humor  of  His  creature? 

It  will  furthermore  be  conceded  that  with  the  vast 
majority  of  men  the  belief  in  a  continued  probation  after 
death  diminishes  the  seriousness  of  life  as  the  one  trial 
time  for  eternity.  It  tends  to  relax  our  moral  energies. 
“Release  from  the  notion  of  eternal  punishment  would 
be  felt  by  the  great  mass  as  a  release  from  the  sense  of 
moral  obligation;  and,  relying  on  the  certainty  that  all 
would  be  sure  to  be  right  at  last,  men  would  run  the 
risk  of  the  intermediate  punishment,  whatever  it  might 
be,  and  plunge  into  self-indulgence  without  hesitation.”  1 

It  cannot  be  sufficiently  insisted  that  the  fear  of  pun¬ 
ishment  plays  an  infinitely  greater  part  in  the  evolution  of 
man’s  moral  life  than  is  commonly  supposed.  We  should 
look  upon  the  actual  facts  of  life  and  upon  man  as  he 

1  “Essays,  Historical  and  Theological,”  by  J.  B.  Mozley,  D.  D., 
vol.  ii.,  pp.  296,  298. 


62  WHY  SHOULD  DEATH  TERMINATE  OUR  PROBATION? 

really  is;  we  are  then  scarcely  likely  to  be  led  astray  by 
high-sounding  phrases  and  by  arguments  so  dear  to  the 
modern  mind.  The  exceptionally  clear  and  uncompromis¬ 
ing  declarations  of  Holy  Scripture  on  this  subject  could 
not  have  been  uttered  without  a  very  definite  aim,  and  it 
should  not  be  forgotten  that  He  Who  knew  what  was  in 
man  “has  used  language  which,  on  the  hypothesis  of  a 
probation  afer  death,  loses  all,  or  nearly  all,  its  force.” 
“What  mean  those  repeated  warnings  about  the  thief  in 
the  night;  the  sudden  return  of  the  master  of  the  house, 
or  of  the  bridegroom;  the  two  men  in  one  bed;  the  two 
women  at  the  mill ;  the  two  men  in  the  field,  of  whom  one 
was  taken  and  the  other  left;  what  mean  those  reiterated 
exhortations  of  Christ  and  His  Apostle  to  continual 
watchfulness  but  that  life  is  short,  the  time  of  death  un¬ 
certain,  and  there  is  no  repentance  in  the  grave?” 

“How  much,”  wrote  Mr.  Gladstone,  “do  we  know  of 
the  lot  of  the  perversely  wicked?  They  disappear  into 
pain  and  sorrow;  the  veil  drops  upon  them  in  that  con¬ 
dition.  Every  indication  of  a  further  change  is  withheld, 
so  that  if  it  be  designed  it  has  not  been  made  known,  and 
is  nowhere  incorporated  with  the  divine  teaching.  What¬ 
ever  else  pertains  to  this  sad  subject  is  withheld  from  our 
too  curious  and  unprofitable  gaze.  The  specific  and  lim¬ 
ited  statements  supplied  to  us  are,  after  all,  only  expres¬ 
sions,  in  particular  form,  of  immovable  and  universal  laws 
— on  the  one  hand,  of  the  irrevocable  union  between  suf¬ 
fering  and  sin;  on  the  other  hand,  of  the  perfection  of 
the  Most  High — both  of  them  believed  in  full,  but  only 
in  part  disclosed,  and  having  elsewhere,  it  may  be,  their 
plenary  manifestation  in  that  day  of  the  restitution  of 
all  things  for  which  a  groaning  and  travailing  Creation 
yearns.” 


WHY  DOES  NOT  GOD  DESTROY  THE  IMPENITENT?  63 


IV. 

Why  does  not  God  destroy  the  finally 
impenitent  Soul? 

PUNISHMENT,  it  is  urged,  may  be  a  moral  neces¬ 
sity.  The  divine  law  of  justice  may,  in  a  way  we 
do  not  understand,  demand  its  infliction.  But 
why  should  that  punishment  be  unending?  Why  does 
not  God  either  allow  the  rebellious  sinner’s  conscious 
life  to  terminate  at  death,  or,  after  a  punishment  suffi¬ 
cient  to  vindicate  His  moral  law,  terminate  it  after 
death?  A  persistent  refusal  to  strive  after  the  true  end 
of  life  when  that  ends  has  been  clearly  perceived,  may 
conceivably  leave  no  other  alternative.  The  law  is  there 
that  “without  holiness  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord.”  The 
very  recognition  by  the  sinner,  on  the  other  hand,  of  a 
happiness  which  might  have  been  won  but  which,  in  spite 
of  a  thousand  warnings,  has  been  forfeited,  might  in  it¬ 
self  be  regarded  as  such  a  sufficient  punishment. 

And  some  such  method  of  maintaining  the  moral  order 
of  the  universe,  if  not  quite  in  accord  with  our  moral  feel¬ 
ings  and  intuitions,  would  at  least  be  reconcilable  in  some 
degree  with  our  sense  of  the  just  proportion  of  things  and 
with  our  reason — it  would  relieve  the  distressed  mind 
of  that  dreadful  nightmare  which  is  created  by  the  belief 
in  a  permanent  state  of  unhappiness. 

It  is  impossible  not  to  sympathize  with  the  thoughts 
and  feelings  which  have  prompted  this  question.  It 
sounds  like  the  despairing  cry  of  a  soul  finding  itself 
face  to  face  with  a  terrible  and  unwelcome  but  never¬ 
theless  incontrovertible  truth.  It  is  another  effort  of  the 
human  reason  to  find  some  way  of  escape  out  of  an 
overwhelming  difficulty.  But  there  is  probably  no  theory 
propounded  in  connection  with  this  subject  which  rests 


64  WHY  DOES  NOT  GOD  DESTROY  THE  IMPENITENT? 

upon  a  more  unstable  and  impossible  foundation.  The 
annihilation  of  the  wicked  at  death  or  “after  death  is  a 
notion  so  purely  artificial  and  gratuitous  in  itself,  so 
directly  in  the  teeth  of  all  scriptural  and  traditional 
authority,  and  so  violently  opposed  to  the  rudimentary  in¬ 
stincts  of  natural  religion,  that  it  is  never  likely  to  take 
root  and  to  spread.  It  is  a  mere  clumsy  attempt  to  cut 
the  knot  of  a  difficulty  which  its  authors  cannot  solve  by 
introducing  another  far  more  fatal  one  in  its  place.”  1 

If  we  have  a  moral  difficulty  in  conceiving  of  a  God 
who  inflicts  infinite  punishment  upon  a  soul  rebelling 
against  His  known  laws,  what  are  we  to  think  of  a  God 
who  first  punishes  and  then  destroys? 

Hell,  after  all,  might  be  conceived  of  as  a  state  of 
suffering  merely  from  the  point  of  view  of  a  higher 
state  of  glory  and  delight;  it  might  look  different  from 
some  other  point  of  view.  We  have  here  on  earth  con¬ 
ditions  of  pain  and  anguish  which  cannot  be  expected  to 
cease  during  life,  but  which  we  nevertheless  consider  in¬ 
finitely  preferable  to  death  and  extinction.  But  the 
thought  of  punishment  after  death,  followed  by  the  soul’s 
extinction,  surely  involves  a  moral  difficulty  which  is  in¬ 
finitely  greater  than  that  which  this  theory  is  propounded 
to  solve. 

At  all  events,  it  is  certain  that  the  idea  of  annihila¬ 
tion,  of  the  extinction  of  our  conscious  personality  by 
death  or  after  death,  is  a  conception  contradicted  both 
by  Christianity  and  by  our  elementary  religious  in¬ 
stincts.  It  is  because  their  witness  to  the  contrary  is 
so  clear  and  emphatic  that  the  doctrine  of  Hell  and  of  fu¬ 
ture  punishment  awakens  in  us  such  serious  thought,  and 
engages  our  interest  at  all. 

The  schoolmen  argue  that  the  animal  soul,  being  pro¬ 
duced  by  secondary  causes  at  its  first  creation  and  there¬ 
after  by  the  process  of  generation,  is  mortal  and  perish- 

1  “Catholic  Eschatology  and  Universalism.” 


I 


WHY  DOES  NOT  GOD  DESTROY  THE  IMPENITENT?  65 

able.  We  read  in  Genesis:  “And  God  said,  Let  the 
earth  bring  forth  the  living  creature  after  his  kind,  etc.” 

The  spiritual  soul  of  man,  on  the  other  hand,  was  and 
is  produced  by  the  direct  creative  energy  of  God  and  is 
consequently,  by  its  very  nature,  immortal  and  imper¬ 
ishable.  “And  the  Lord  God  *  *  *  breathed  into  his 
nostrils  the  breath  of  life ;  and  man  became  a  living  soul.” 
The  distinction  is  clear  and  is  expressed  in  those  famil¬ 
iar  words  of  Ecclesiastes:  “Then  shall  the  dust  return 
to  the  earth  as  it  was,  and  the  spirit  shall  return  unto 
God  Who  gave  it.”  1 

The  spirit  is  immortal  by  reason  of  its  origin  and  es¬ 
sential  nature,  being  independent  of,  and  distinct  from, 
any  element  of  a  mortal  and  perishable  character. 

The  materialistic  philosophy,  as  is  well  known,  has 
done  its  best  to  discredit  this  reasoning  by  false  methods 
of  argument  and  by  mistaken  inferences  from  scientific 
facts.  The  most  recent  psychological  research,  however, 
has  established  the  fallacy  of  that  philosophy,  and  no 
thinker  of  note  holds  it  today.  Numerous  experiments 
have  shown  conclusively  that  while  there  is  a  certain 
interdependence  between  mind  and  body,  there  are  mani¬ 
festations  which  demonstrate  the  former’s  independence 
of  the  latter  under  given  conditions,  and  its  spiritual 
qualities  and  characteristics.  A  spiritualistic  philos¬ 
ophy  consequently  has  taken  the  place  of  the  materialistic 
one. 

And  the  universal  consciousness  of  and  belief  in,  a 
future  life,  of  course,  confirm  the  accuracy  of  the  schol¬ 
astic  reasoning.  Nothing  else  could  explain  the  origin 
and  persistence  of  that  belief  in  all  primitive  races  who 
could  not  possibly  have  acquired  it  from  contact  with 
Jewish  or  Christian  teaching.  Were  the  notion  of  the 
possibility  of  annihilation  at  death  or  after  death  pos¬ 
sible  to  human  nature,  the  belief  in  future  rewards  and 


1  Ch.  xii.,  7. 


66  WHY  DOES  NOT  GOD  DESTROY  THE  IMPENITENT? 

punishment  could  not,  in  view  of  man’s  downward  ten¬ 
dencies  and  sensual  cravings,  have  been  preserved.  The 
development  of  primitive  religions,  expressing  themselves 
in  sacrifice  and  expiatory  rites  for  the  benefit  of  the  liv¬ 
ing  and  the  dead,  would  have  been  impossible  and  human 
evolution  would  have  taken  an  entirely  different  direction. 

And  the  mysterious  and  complex  manifestations  of 
the  human  conscience  too  confirm  it.  For  when  we  an¬ 
alyze  these  manifestations,  so  authoritative  and  persist¬ 
ent  in  their  nature,  we  come  in  the  last  instance  to  the 
innate  conviction  of  the  life  after  death  and  the  respon¬ 
sibilities  which  it  involves. 

If  the  mind  were  capable  of  seriously  entertaining 
the  conception  of  annihilation  at  death,  the  tortures  of 
a  sin-stained  conscience,  the  manifestations  of  remorse 
and  fear,  in  callous  natures  that  have  never  come  under 
religious  and  educational  influences,  would  be  simply  in¬ 
comprehensible.  They  would  be  phenomena  for  which 
there  is  positively  no  place  in  the  universe  and  for 
which  we  could  assign  no  cause.  For,  even  if  early 
training  or  “inherited  tendency”  could  in  some  measure 
be  held  responsible  for  such  soul-experiences,  neither 
could  be  considered  an  adequate  cause  since  men  do  con¬ 
stantly  and  successfully  reject  or  improve  upon  other 
educational  and  moral  principles  which  they  have  in¬ 
herited  or  imbibed. 

Other  valid  arguments,  demonstrating  the  spirituality 
of  the  human  soul,  might  be  adduced  from  the  phenomena 
of  consciousness  and  free-will. 

All  true  science  therefore  and  accurate  thought  go 
to  demonstrate  the  indestructibility  of  the  human  spirit 
and  repudiate  the  notion  of  its  annihilation  at  death. 

It  must  be  clear,  moreover,  that  with  the  assumption 
of  man’s  annihilation,  consequent  upon  his  rebellion 
against  his  Creator,  and  his  disobedience  to  His  known 
laws,  anything  like  order  would  disappear  from  the 
sphere  of  God’s  divine  government.  If  it  were  certain 


WHY  DOES  NOT  GOD  DESTROY  THE  IMPENITENT?  67 


that  God  would  hereafter  annihilate  the  incorrigible  sin¬ 
ner,  and  that  no  punishment,  strictly  speaking,  need  be 
feared,  would  there  not  cease  to  be  any  distinction  be¬ 
tween  small  and  great  sins  as  soon  as  a  certain  condi¬ 
tion  of  soul  had  been  reached?  The  sinner,  convinced 
that  he  has  forfeited  salvation,  and  that  he  will  be 
wiped  out  of  existence,  would  probably  continue  in  sin 
and  rebellion  against  God,  and  thus  triumph  over  God. 
Indeed  he  might  be  conceived  as  rejoicing  at  his  success 
in  having  conquered  God. 

The  moral  effect,  therefore,  of  such  a  doctrine  would 
be  simply  disastrous.  It  would  have  anything  but  a  con¬ 
straining  influence  upon  human  life.  There  are  natures 
who,  if  they  had  nothing  to  fear  but  future  extinction, 
would  go  to  any  length  in  their  career  of  vice  and  de¬ 
fiance  of  moral  laws.  It  is  the  vague  sense  of  the  pos¬ 
sibility  at  least  of  the  truth  of  the  Christian  doctrine 
which  keeps  them  within  bounds,  supported,  as  it  un¬ 
questionably  is,  by  the  witness  of  the  individual  con¬ 
science,  however  faint  and  indistinct  it  may  be  in  some 
cases. 

But,  granting  for  a  moment  that  the  words  cf  Christ 
admit  of  an  interpretation  favorable  to  this  theory,  how 
would  the  matter  look  from  the  standpoint  of  the  sinner? 
In  its  logical  inference  would  it  not  mean  his  victory  over 
God  and  the  ultimate  triumph  of  sin?  Would  not  God 
be  putting  it  within  the  power  of  man  to  compel  Him 
to  destroy  a  creature  which  He  has  created  and  con¬ 
stituted  for  His  glory? 

In  creating  man,  God  surely  desires  man’s  being;  it 
is  therefore  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  He  can  at  the 
same  time  desire  his  not  being.  We  can  believe  that 
man  may,  by  a  sinful  life,  place  himself  outside  the 
sphere  of  God’s  love  and  mercy,  but  we  cannot  surely 
suppose  that  he  can,  by  any  act  of  his  own,  place  him¬ 
self  outside  the  sphere  of  God’s  rule  and  government,  and 
thus  evade  his  eternal  destiny.  The  very  thought  in- 


68  WILL  NOT  HELL  RENDER  HEAVEN  IMPOSSIBLE? 

volves  an  absurdity,  and  limits  the  Creator’s  power  over 
the  creature. 

And  assuming  that  God,  to  vindicate  His  law,  in¬ 
flicted  upon  the  sinner,  incapable  of  union  with  Him,  a 
proportionate  punishment  in  the  present  life,  would  it 
not  still  be  in  the  sinner’s  power  to  terminate  that  pun¬ 
ishment  by  suicide,  and  thus  to  outwit  and  defy  God? 


V. 


Will  not  the  Thought  of  Hell  render  impossible  the 
Happiness  of  Heaven? 

IT  IS  contended  that  if  Hell  means  misery  and  ruin  for 
the  lost,  Heaven  cannot  possibly  mean  peace  and  hap¬ 
piness  for  the  saved.  Earthly  bonds  are  scarcely 
likely  to  be  entirely  severed  by  the  change  which  we 
call  death.  If  our  complex  and  undivided  individuality 
survives  that  shock,  memory  too  is  bound  to  survive  it 
in  some  form.  And  in  Heaven  memory  will  be  occupied 
with  the  thought  of  Hell.  It  will  busy  itself  with  the 
destiny  of  the  lost.  Looking,  as  it  is  bound  to  look, 
at  the  purely  human  aspect  of  the  matter,  it  will  awaken 
feelings  of  grief  and  sorrow  at  the  severity  of  their  pun¬ 
ishment,  and  the  hopelessness  of  their  lot.  A  husband 
can  thus  be  conceived  to  be  mourning  for  his  wife,  a 
mother  for  her  children,  a  friend  for  his  friend.  Or¬ 
dinary  human  sympathy,  indeed,  would  produce  this 
feeling  in  any  one  of  us  on  behalf  of  the  lowest  and  most 
degraded  of  our  fellow-men.  And  with  this  sense  of 
separation,  and  of  hopeless  loss,  how  can  there  be  real 
and  unalloyed  happiness  in  Heaven?  Would  not  mem¬ 
ory,  like  a  dark  shadow,  hover  over  the  soul  and  destroy 
anything  like  a  real  and  deep  joy?  Under  such  sad 


WILL  NOT  HELL  RENDER  HEAVEN  IMPOSSIBLE?  69 


and  sorrowful  conditions  would  not  the  saintliest  soul 
weary  of  the  very  greatest  bliss  of  Heaven? 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  difficulty  which  is  thus 
apt  to  formulate  itself  is  a  very  real  and  formidable 
one.  It  is  experienced  by  many  thoughtful  and  right- 
minded  persons  who  fully  accept  the  doctrine  of  Hell, 
and,  at  first  sight,  it  would  seem  to  be  almost  unanswer¬ 
able. 

But,  in  fairly  considering  this  objection,  two  impor¬ 
tant  considerations  have  to  be  borne  in  mind.  The  first 
has  already  been  pointed  out,  and  is  indeed  one  which 
we  have  constantly  to  remember  in  weighing  the  mani¬ 
fold  difficulties  surrounding  this  deeply  important  sub¬ 
ject.  Punishment  and  condemnation  are  not  God’s  ar¬ 
bitrary  act.  They  are  the  inevitable  sequence  of  the 
action  of  cause  and  effect,  the  necessary  result  of  a 
choice  deliberately  made  and  persistently  adhered  to  in 
full  view  of  the  inevitable  consequences.  They  have 
their  foundation  in  the  fundamental  laws  which  govern 
the  moral  universe.  It  is  no  mere  figure  of  speech  to 
say  that  each  man  creates  for  himself  his  own  Heaven 
or  his  own  Hell.  Both  states  or  conditions  have  their 
beginning  here  and  now.  Time  does  not  exist  with 
God.  Throughout  the  entire  period  of  his  life  on  earth, 
from  the  cradle  to  the  grave,  man  is  steadily  gravitating 
either  the  one  way  or  the  other.  When  he  dies,  there¬ 
fore,  his  sentence  is  practically  already  pronounced.  God 
is  not  likely  to  put  him  within  an  environment  with 
which  he  has  no  affinity,  and  with  the  conditions  of  which 
his  moral  nature  is  not  in  correspondence.  The  action 
of  this  law  may  be  distinctly  traced  in  this  present 
world  and,  on  the  whole,  it  can  scarcely  be  said  to 
offend  our  moral  judgment.  On  the  contrary,  there  is 
a  sense  in  which  we  acknowledge  its  righteousness,  and 
in  which  we  apply  it  ourselves  in  the  affairs  of  our  social 
and  public  life.  Indeed,  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  how 
any  order  in  the  affairs  of  life  would  be  possible  with- 


70  WILL  NOT  HELL  RENDER  HEAVEN  IMPOSSIBLE? 

out  it.  The  criminal  is  not  entrusted  with  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  people,  or  with  any  high  office,  even  though 
he  may  possess  all  the  intellectual  gifts  and  endowments 
necessary  for  such  a  post,  and  we  may  know  his  moral 
state  to  be  due  to  early  neglect,  or  to  some  one  overpow¬ 
ering  passion  rather  than  to  any  distinctly  evil  disposi¬ 
tion.  It  is  no  particular  written  law  which  excludes 
him,  but  he  excludes  himself.  He  is  out  of  harmony 
with  that  moral  sphere  which  is  part  of  the  high  office  in 
question.  And  his  occupation  of  it  would  be  a  violation 
of  that  law  of  fitness,  which  is  vaguely  perhaps,  but  still 
universally,  perceived  and  acknowledged  by  mankind. 

And  in  this  sense  we  may  certainly  be  said  to  recog¬ 
nize  the  justice  and  fitness  underlying  the  doctrine  of 
Hell  already  now.  We  have  our  intellectual  difficulties, 
it  is  true.  We  rebel  against  this  conception  of  Hell 
or  the  other.  We  scarcely  know  how  to  formulate  what 
we  really  think.  Still,  that  vague  sense  of  fitness  is 
there.  It  already  now  governs  our  moral  being,  and  it 
is  engraved  upon  the  very  fibres  of  our  minds!  There 
is,  moreover,  accompanying  it,  that  deliberate  inward 
conviction,  deeply  impressed  upon  the  Christian  conscious¬ 
ness,  that,  though  there  be  the  punishment  of  Hell,  yet 
the  Judge  of  the  earth  will  do  right. 

There  are,  of  course,  those  who  have  played  tricks 
with  their  conscience,  and  for  whom  it  is  no  longer  a 
divine  witness,  who  have  honestly  ceased  to  believe  in  a 
moral  order  in  the  world.  There  are,  on  the  other  hand, 
those  who,  by  cultivating  a  certain  outward  calm,  suc¬ 
ceed  in  hiding  the  disquietude  of  their  troubled  and  tor¬ 
tured  minds  both  from  themselves  and  from  others. 
The  modern  world  has  more  ways  than  one  of  forgetting, 
or  of  getting  rid  of,  an  inconvenient  truth.  Still,  the 
fact  remains  that  thorough  believers  in  Hell  are  on  the 
whole  strangely  calm  and  composed  in  the  face  of  so  mo¬ 
mentous  a  truth  involving  such  fearful  issues,  and,  to 
say  the  least,  view  the  matter  with  comparative  com- 


WILL  NOT  HELL  RENDER  HEAVEN  IMPOSSIBLE? 


71 


placency  and  unconcern.  Is  it  not  because  they  are 
morally  sure  that  somehow  justice  will  be  found  to  un¬ 
derlie  all,  and  that  no  punishment  will  be  inflicted  upon 
man  which  he  has  not  deserved,  and  for  which  he  is  not 
altogether  responsible? 

In  the  second  place,  we  have  to  bear  in  mind  that 
our  faculties  are  imperfect  and  limited — that  we  are  un¬ 
der  the  sway  of  the  senses.  We  cannot  see  as  God  sees. 
With  our  finite  intellects  we  cannot  hope  to  fully  grasp 
a  doctrine  which  is  part  of  a  Divine  Revelation  and  which 
discloses  the  truths  of  the  supernatural  and  timeless 
world  and  order.  We  cannot  even  fully  grasp  a  single 
fact  or  ascertained  law  of  science.  The  real  secret  under¬ 
lying  it  escapes  us.  How  can  we  expect  to  understand 
the  secrets  of  a  sphere  into  which  we  have  not  yet  en¬ 
tered,  and  with  which  we  are  only  in  a  measure  in 
correspondence?  It  may  be  essential  to  our  well-being 
that  we  should  know  that  there  is  a  Hell;  it  may  not  be 
necessary  that  we  should  understand  the  “how,”  or  be 
able  to  fit  it  in  with  our  present  conception  of  things. 
It  is  almost  certain  that  we  would  not  fully  understand 
even  if  some  more  explicit  communication  had  been  made 
to  us. 

Again,  it  is  conceivable  that  the  affections  of  earth 
will  experience  a  considerable  change  when  we  shall  learn 
to  distinguish  between  divine  and  human  love,  and  when 
we  see  things  in  their  right  proportions.  We  love  a 
person  here  on  earth,  because  of  that  person’s  character 
and  apparent  perfections.  But  we  may  be  grievously 
mistaken  respecting  them  and  may  regard  that  as  virtue 
which,  from  the  divine  standpoint,  is  not  virtue  at  all, 
but  self-love  and  selfishness.  A  perverted  nature  may, 
as  we  all  know,  be  incited  to  love  even  by  vice. 

We  cannot,  for  instance,  conceive  of  a  saint  loving 
those  whose  inner  nature  is  alienated  from  God,  and 
whose  character,  however  attractive  from  the  human 
point  of  view,  has  no  beauty  or  attractiveness  from  God’s 


72  WILL  NOT  HELL  RENDER  HEAVEN  IMPOSSIBLE? 

point  of  view.  He  could  not  love  them  any  longer, 
since  God  loves  them  no  longer.  Here  on  earth,  we 
cannot  possibly  form  an  accurate  judgment  of  any  char¬ 
acter,  and  cannot,  therefore,  say  that  this  person  or  the 
other  has  reached  a  condition  of  soul  which  renders  him 
no  longer  worthy  of  esteem  and  love.  We  experience 
a  difficulty  in  conceiving  of  a  fixed  and  final  state  of  the 
soul.  We  look  upon  every  person  as  capable  of  improve¬ 
ment,  and  here  and  now  Christianity  extends  its  arms  of 
mercy  to  the  most  debased  and  unworthy  of  men.  It  is 
our  duty,  therefore,  to  exercise  active  love  toward  every 
man,  even  though  he  may  have  forfeited  all  claim  to  our 
respect.  But  the  case  will  surely  be  very  different  in 
the  other  world,  and  after  the  Judgment.  Earthly  love 
there  will  have  changed  its  character,  and  will  have  be¬ 
come  transformed.  It  will  view  all  things  in  a  wholly 
different  light,  and  from  the  standpoint  of  a  wider  knowl¬ 
edge  and  a  more  perfect  discernment.  And  it  is  surely 
conceivable  that,  in  the  light  of  that  perfect  love,  the 
soul’s  nature  will  experience  such  a  radical  transforma¬ 
tion  that  the  attachments  and  affections  of  earth  will  no 
longer  hinder  its  most  perfect  peace,  and  its  enjoyment 
of  unalloyed  happiness. 

In  any  case  it  is,  and  must  always  be,  a  question  of 
“adaptation  to  environment.”  There  is  a  law  of  fitness 
at  work,  the  reasonableness  of  which  all  intelligent  per¬ 
sons  acknowledge  and  in  accordance  with  which  they  act. 
The  circumstance  that  thousands  of  our  fellowmen  are 
at  this  moment  languishing  in  life-long  captivity,  shut 
away  from  all  the  joys  of  life,  does  not  seriously  dis¬ 
turb  our  own  happiness.  Many  a  father  rejoices  that 
he  and  the  world  have  got  rid  of  his  reprobate  son. 
Many  a  wife  has  only  known  peace  and  happiness  since 
the  law  permanently  separated  her  from  her  husband. 
Both  implicitly  acknowledge  the  fitness  of  a  law  which 
has  insured  their  own  happiness  and  they  do  not  consider 
that  they  are  enjoying  that  happiness  unfairly  and  un- 


WILL  NOT  HELL  RENDER  HEAVEN  IMPOSSIBLE?  73 


justly.  Indeed,  since  aversion  has  taken  the  place  of 
affection,  is  not  separation  from  the  person  referred  to 
the  very  condition  of  this  happiness? 

Again  it  is  difficult  for  us  to  conceive  of  any  happiness 
for  the  sensual  man,  the  brutal  profligate,  and  the  heart¬ 
less  money-grubber  amidst  the  joys  of  Heaven,  in  the 
company  of  the  saints  and  the  just.  Imagine  the  man 
whose  every  thought  has  been  centered  on  horse-racing, 
on  sense-pleasure,  in  its  manifold  forms,  who  has  crushed 
out  of  his  nature  every  higher  prompting  and  considera¬ 
tion,  suddenly  translated  into  the  world  of  spiritual  light 
where  God  is  all  in  all  and  where  sensuous  delights  have 
ceased  to  be!  Would  he  himself  be  happy  in  such  an 
environment?  Would  the  happiness  of  those  who  have 
striven  hard  to  secure  Heaven  be  seriously  disturbed  be¬ 
cause  of  his  exclusion  from  them?  Is  it  not  necessarily 
always  a  question  of  the  law  of  fitness  and  of  adaptation 
to  environment?  Without  holiness  can  any  man  see  the 
Lord? 

These  reflections  and  considerations  may  not  help  us 
much.  But  they  tend  to  remind  us  at  least  that  a  law  of 
order  is  at  work  in  the  moral  universe  and  that  the  diffi¬ 
culty  referred  to  here  may  find  its  full  and  perfect  solu¬ 
tion  in  our  better  recognition  of  the  justice  and  working 
of  that  law.  They  may  help  us  to  see  that  our  difficulty 
is  a  purely  subjective  one  which  may  conceivably  vanish 
when  we  see  things  from  the  standpoint  of  the  other 
world  and  are  no  longer  misled  by  the  “false  seemings” 
of  the  sense-world. 


74  WHY  ARE  BEINGS  CREATED  THAT  WILL  REBEL? 


VI. 

Why  does  God  create  Beings  whose  Future  Misery  He 

must  be  able  to  foresee? 

THIS  is  perhaps  the  most  weighty  of  all  the  objec¬ 
tions  which  can  be  urged  against  the  doctrine  of 
Eternal  Punishment. 

Sin,  many  are  ready  to  admit,  may  in  some  unknown 
and  mysterious- way  introduce  an  element  into  the  moral 
universe  which  disturbs  its  harmony  and  destroys  its 
beauty.  From  the  standpoint  of  the  other  world,  it  may 
be  both  just  and  reasonable  that  the  author  of  the  mis¬ 
chief,  having  introduced  it  of  his  own  free  will,  and  with 
full  knowledge  of  the  consequences,  should  be  perma¬ 
nently  excluded  from  the  sphere  of  the  highest  beauty 
and  the  purest  light.  But  this  does  not  solve  the  real 
difficulty  of  the  matter.  The  fact  remains,  that  how¬ 
ever  just  and  righteous  the  law  which  thus  permanently 
punishes  the  transgressor,  the  punishment  is  inflicted,  and 
it  is  terrible  and  seemingly  cruel  in  its  character.  And 
if  the  laws  of  the  universe  made  the  infliction  of  such  a 
punishment  a  moral  necessity,  was  there  a  similar  moral 
necessity  for  calling  man  into  being?  Why  was  he  cre¬ 
ated  at  all,  seeing  that  the  end  of  his  existence,  in  so 
many  instances,  is  suffering  and  anguish?  Why  does 
not  the  Creator,  being  just  and  merciful,  and  foreseeing, 
as  of  course  He  must  be  able  to  foresee,  His  creature’s 
failure  and  fall,  and  consequently  his  permanent  misery, 
abstain  from  calling  it  into  conscious  life?  Why  does 
He  cause  any  man  to  pass  through  a  probation,  the  issues 
of  which  are  already  fully  known  to  Him?  What,  in¬ 
deed,  is  the  object  of  imposing  a  probation  at  all?  Is 
it  not  an  unnecessary  and  additional  means  of  inflicting 
pain  and  punishment,  of  awakening  hopes  which  are  des- 


WHY  ARE  BEINGS  CREATED  THAT  WILL  REBEL?  75 


tined  never  to  be  fulfilled,  and  aspirations  which  are  cer¬ 
tain  to  be  quenched  in  eternal  misery  and  despair? 

The  mind  is  awed  and  overwhelmed  in  contemplating 
these  problems  and  difficulties,  and  yet  they  can  scarcely 
fail  to  suggest  themselves.  We  know  that  they  do  sug¬ 
gest  themselves  to  many  very  thoughtful  and  devout 
minds,  and  nothing  is  gained  by  treating  them  lightly,  or 
by  perhaps  ignoring  them  altogether.  They  have  their 
foundation  in  the  very  inmost  depths  of  our  moral  nature, 
and  it  is  a  relief  to  face  them  and  to  formulate  them, 
even  if  we  cannot  answer  them  to  our  satisfaction,  or  in 
any  measure  unveil  the  mystery  which  prompts  them. 

But  it  will  be  admitted  that  the  difficulty  has  thus  been 
stated  in  its  most  extreme  and  severe  form  and,  in  view¬ 
ing  it  fairly  and  fully,  one  very  important  considera¬ 
tion  has  to  be  borne  in  mind.  It  is  no  mere  begging 
the  question  to  say  that,  from  the  constitution  of  our 
nature,  we  cannot  possibly  expect  to  be  able  to  solve 
the  ultimate  mystery  of  the  universe.  Our  intellects  are 
finite  and  limited,  and  we  are  distinctly  conscious  of  this 
limitation.  We  can  thus  never  hope  to  understand  why 
man  or  anything  was  created,  or,  indeed,  how  God 
comes  to  exist.  We  are  certain  that  these  things  lie 
beyond  our  ken.  Now,  clearly,  any  attempt  to  answer 
the  question  under  consideration  in  such  a  way  as  really 
to  satisfy  the  intellect  involves  these  other  questions  as 
to  the  central  mystery  of  life  and  the  purposes  of  crea¬ 
tion.  We  cannot  ask  one  without  asking  the  other.  To 
answer  that  man  was  created  to  glorify  God  may  sat¬ 
isfy  our  religious  feelings,  but  it  cannot,  and  does  not, 
satisfy  the  craving  for  a  deeper  understanding.  For 
the  further  question  might  then,  and  without  irrever¬ 
ence,  be  asked :  In  what  way  is  God’s  glory  increased  by 
our  existence? 

But  man  does  exist,  and  is  conscious  of  his  existence 
without  being  able  to  explain  it.  And  God  exists,  and 
the  normal  man  is  both  morally  and  intellectually  con- 


76  WHY  ARE  BEINGS  CREATED  THAT  WILL  REBEL? 

vinced  of  His  existence  without  being  able  to  explain  it. 
And  the  same  intuition  which  imparts  the  knowledge 
that  God  is,  also  imparts  the  conviction  that  the  origin 
and  mystery  of  His  existence  are  unfathomable.  There 
is  the  distinct  consciousness  that,  in  this  direction,  no 
progress  can  ever  be  made  in  our  knowledge  and  percep¬ 
tion — that  in  our  present  state  we  shall  never  penetrate 
the  mystery.  It  brings  us  face  to  face  with  our  finite¬ 
ness,  which  no  increase  of  wisdom  and  learning,  and  no 
deepening  of  our  moral  perceptions  can  remove. 

Now  the  difficulty  formulated  at  the  head  of  this 
chapter  is  surely  of  this  order.  To  solve  it  would  be  to 
solve  the  mystery  of  life,  and  to  know  as  God  knows — to 
become  possessed  of  superhuman  faculties.  We  are  not 
evading  the  difficulty,  therefore,  when  we  acknowledge 
our  helplessness  and  ignorance  in  this  matter,  and  the 
conscious  limitations  of  our  mental  nature.  All  we  can 
do  is  to  reason  from  the  known  to  the  unknown,  and  to 
discover,  if  we  can,  analogies  between  God’s  method  of 
action  as  we  know  it  in  this  present  life,  and  His  revealed 
method  of  action  respecting  the  life  that  is  to  be. 

And  what  is  God’s  method  of  action  in  the  visible  uni¬ 
verse? 

A  large  number  of  mankind  are  born  to  a  life  of  suf¬ 
fering  and  pain,  both  physical  and  moral.  In  innumer¬ 
able  instances  they  bring  with  them  into  life  the  seeds 
of  terrible  and  incurable  disease,  which  exclude  the  very 
possibility  of  any  kind  of  real  enjoyment.  In  other  in¬ 
stances,  physical  and  mental  suffering  are  incurred  later 
on  in  life  through  negligence  and  ignorance,  or,  it  may 
be,  in  consequence  of  a  deliberate  transgression  of  known 
laws.  Declining  health  and  the  discomforts  of  old  age 
are  in  any  case  the  lot  of  most  men.  So  far  as  our 
judgment  goes,  the  individual  is,  in  very  many  instances, 
less  responsible  for  this  state  of  things  than  what  we 
term  natural  laws  and  “circumstances.”  In  some  in- 


WHY  ARE  BEINGS  CREATED  THAT  WILL  REBEL?  77 


stances  there  is  manifestly  no  responsibility  at  all;  but 
the  pain  and  the  suffering  exist,  and,  whatever  our  theo¬ 
ries  respecting  their  origin,  the  Author  of  life  must  have 
foreseen  it  all,  must  have  known  that  in  calling  man  into 
existence  He  exposed  him  to  the  possibility  of  extreme  and 
prolonged  suffering.  And  yet  He  created  man.  His 
fore-knowledge  respecting  a  world  of  anguish  and  of 
woe  did  not  prevent  His  calling  that  world  into  being.  A 
moment’s  reflection  brings  us  face  to  face  with  the  diffi¬ 
culty  and  the  profound  mystery  which  underlies  it.  There 
are  few  of  us  who  have  not  given  expression  to  our  sense 
of  it  when  confronted  by  some  painful  incident  in  life. 
We  are  often  utterly  unable  to  reconcile  such  an  incident 
with  our  instinctive  notions  of  God’s  goodness  and  jus¬ 
tice.  And  yet  we  continue  to  believe  in  that  goodness 
and  justice.  There  is  an  indescribable  something  within 
us  which  tells  us  that  there  is  a  solution  somewhere,  and 
that  they  can  be  reconciled. 

The  fact  then  remains  that  God,  although  He  knew 
that  by  creating  man  He  exposed  him  to  the  possibility 
of  perpetual  suffering,  nevertheless  created  him.  But 
if  God’s  manifest  action  in  the  matter  of  our  present 
state  is  in  the  end  reconcilable  with  our  intuitive  belief  in 
His  goodness  and  love,  why  should  it  not  be  equally  so 
in  matters  pertaining  to  the  future  life?  If,  in  passing 
into  conscious  existence,  terrible  risks  respecting  the  pres¬ 
ent  life  are  incurred  by  the  creature,  why  not  equal  or 
conceivably  greater  risks  respecting  the  future  life? 
Bearing  in  mind  the  unity  of  nature  and  of  nature’s  laws, 
is  it  not  more  than  probable  that  the  law  pertains  to  both 
states?  The  risks  incurred  may,  for  all  wre  know,  be 
the  necessary  adjuncts  to  the  gift  of  conscious  life  and  of 
free-will. 

We  do  not  fully  understand  now;  but  it  is  conceivable 
that  we  shall  have  no  difficulty  in  understanding  with 
widened  perceptions,  and  when  we  know  a  little  more  of 
the  Creator’s  purpose  in  the  universe.  “I  can  see  noth- 


78  WHY  ARE  BEINGS  CREATED  THAT  WILL  REBEL? 


ing,”  writes  Prof.  Jevons, 1  “to  forbid  the  notion  that 
in  a  higher  state  of  intelligence  much  that  is  now  ob¬ 
scure  may  become  clear.  We  perpetually  find  ourselves 
in  the  position  of  finite  minds  attempting  problems,  and 
can  we  be  sure  that  where  we  see  contradiction,  an  in¬ 
finite  intelligence  might  not  discover  perfect  logical  har¬ 
mony  V* 

At  any  rate,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  moral 
difficulty  involved  in  the  question  here  formulated  is  no 
greater  than  that  which  is  constantly  facing  us  in  the 
known  and  undeniable  facts  of  our  present  life. 

And  in  the  sphere  of  our  finite  human  existence  can 
we,  by  our  own  foreknowledge,  always  save  our  fellow- 
creatures  from  suffering  and  pain?  We  too,  are,  in  a 
lower  sense,  creators  of  life;  it  lies  within  the  power  of 
our  wills  to  be  instrumental  in  calling  other  human  be¬ 
ings  into  existence.  We  are  fully  conscious  that,  with 
the  imparting  of  life,  grave  risks  and  perils  are  incur¬ 
red.  Our  children  may  be  born  with  healthy  bodies  and 
minds,  and  may  have  every  faculty  for  enjoying  life — for 
a  time  at  least.  But  they  may  also  be  born  with  crip¬ 
pled  bodies  and  defective  minds,  and  their  course,  from 
the  cradle  to  the  grave,  may  be  one  long  period  of  an¬ 
guish.  Indeed,  in  some  instances,  parents  are  absolutely 
certain — they  have  the  positive  foreknowledge — that 
their  children  will  be  born  with  the  germs  of  incurable 
disease  in  their  bodies,  and  that,  in  giving  them  physical 
life,  they  expose  them  to  the  risks  of  perpetual  bodily  or 
mental  suffering.  Do  they  on  that  account  abstain  from 
calling  those  children  into  being?  Does  their  foreknowl¬ 
edge  abrogate  that  law  of  necessity  which  seems  to  under¬ 
lie  the  world  of  phenomena  and  of  conscious  life? 

Reflection,  therefore,  makes  us  recognize  two  facts: — 

(1)  The  difficulty  suggested  involves  a  mystery 

1  “Principles  of  Science,”  vol.  ii.,  p.  48. 


WHY  ARE  BEINGS  CREATED  THAT  WILL  REBEL?  79 


which,  by  the  constitution  of  our  nature,  we  cannot  pos¬ 
sibly  hope  to  fathom. 

(2)  God’s  revealed  method  of  action,  in  the  sphere  of 
the  spiritual  universe,  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  His 
known  method  of  action  in  the  sphere  of  the  physical 
universe. 

This  again  may  not  help  us  much;  but  it  is  clearly 
as  far  as  we  can  hope  to  get  in  an  enquiry  of  this  kind. 
To  show  that  the  laws  of  Revelation,  however  difficult  to 
understand,  are  reflected  in  the  laws  of  Nature  which  we 
do  understand  in  a  measure,  is  something  gained. 

Two  very  important  points  deserve  our  consideration: 

(1)  For  all  practical  purposes  the  difficulty  sug¬ 
gested  does  not  exist.  We  can  be  absolutely  certain 
that  God’s  foreknowledge  respecting  our  destiny  does  not 
in  any  way  affect  or  limit  His  action  upon  our  moral 
nature.  The  thought  is  not  contained  in  the  New  Tes¬ 
tament  and  it  is  contrary  to  all  experience. 

Hell  and  its  punishments  are  constantly  declared  to 
be  of  man’s,  not  of  God’s  making:  the  inevitable  result  of 
our  moral  freedom.  The  Christian  Revelation  does  not 
justify  us  in  conceiving  of  God  as  creating  a  world  con¬ 
taining  a  place  of  eternal  torment  for  rebellious  crea¬ 
tures,  and  of  then  creating  those  creatures  in  order  that 
some  of  them  may  inhabit  that  place  of  torment;  but  of 
creating  man  with  every  power  and  faculty  for  enjoy¬ 
ing  perfect  happiness  both  here  and  hereafter.  And  it 
is  clearly  God’s  desire  that  all  men  should  be  eternally 
happy.  He  expressly  and  repeatedly  declares,  both  in 
the  Old  Testament  and  in  the  New,  that  He  has  no  pleas¬ 
ure  in  the  death  of  a  wicked  man,  that  He  would  infinitely 
rather  see  him  turn  from  his  wickedness  and  live,  and 
that  there  is  joy  in  the  presence  of  the  angels  of  God 
over  a  repentant  sinner.  He  has  made  exceptional  and 
marvelous  provision  for  the  effacement  of  sin,  and  for 
enabling  the  most  confirmed  transgressor  to  become  re- 


80  WHY  ARE  BEINGS  CREATED  THAT  WILL  REBEL? 

stored  to  His  favor.  He  is,  by  the  mouth  of  His  Christ, 
and  of  His  Church,  incessantly  making  the  most  touching 
appeals  to  the  hearts  of  all  men  to  choose  the  way  of  life 
rather  than  the  way  of  death.  He  had  provided  super¬ 
natural  means  which  are  to  aid  the  soul  in  gaining  the 
victory  over  its  greatest  and  most  dangerous  weaknesses. 
The  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit  alone  implies  a  constant 
action  on  God’s  part  in  the  sphere  of  the  soul’s  life. 
And  it  cannot  be  denied  that  these  statements  of  the 
New  Testament  respecting  God’s  continued  action  are 
most  fully  and  constantly  borne  out  by  the  facts  of  our 
own  personal  moral  experience. 

(2)  We  can,  in  the  second  place,  be  absolutely  cer¬ 
tain  that  God’s  foreknowledge  respecting  our  destiny  does 
not  in  any  way  affect  or  limit  our  moral  freedom. 

However  great  our  intellectual  difficulty  in  reconciling 
the  two  may  be  we  can  be  quite  sure  that  our  power  of 
making  a  free  choice  remains  intact.  We  know  that 
we  may,  at  any  given  moment,  exercise  that  power,  if  we 
will,  in  any  given  direction.  There  are  influences  at 
work,  no  doubt,  in  determining  our  choice;  there  are  cir¬ 
cumstances  and  personal  inclinations  to  be  reckoned  with, 
a  host  of  subtle  forces  inclining  our  will  and  affecting 
our  judgment,  but  it  is  certain  that  we  may,  by  a  power¬ 
ful  effort  of  the  will,  act  directly  contrary  to  them  all, 
and  allojv  a  higher  motive  and  impulse  to  set  them  aside. 

The  experiences  of  life  constantly  bear  witness  to  the 
truth  of  this  assertion,  which  any  person  may  test  for 
himself.  We  are  certain  that  we  can,  at  any  particular 
moment,  deliberately  choose  a  path  of  life,  and  enter  up¬ 
on  a  course  of  action  wholly  contrary  to  our  former 
habits  of  mind  and  judgment,  and  that  solely  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  the  illimitability  of  our  individ¬ 
ual  moral  freedom.  We  can  here  safely  dismiss  all 
philosophical  and  abstract  reasonings. 

Our  sense,  therefore,  of  the  fact  of  God’s  foreknowl¬ 
edge  clearly  does  not  decrease  our  personal  responsibility. 


WHY  ARE  BEINGS  CREATED  THAT  WILL  REBEL?  81 


That  responsibility  must,  of  necessity,  remain  so  long  as 
we  know  ourselves  to  be  morally  free.  But  this  freedom 
is  a  matter  of  constant  experience.  We  are  quite  cer¬ 
tain  that,  although  God  inclines  and  disposes  our  wills, 
He  does  not  coerce  them.  We  are  to  desire  our  own  hap¬ 
piness,  and  to  make  a  supreme  effort  towards  its  attain¬ 
ment;  we  are  not  to  be  forced  into  it.  As  St.  Augustine 
says:  “He  who  made  us  without  ourselves  will  not  save 
us  without  ourselves.”  And,  as  another  writer  adds: 
“It  is  difficult  to  see  how  He  could  do  so  conformably 
with  the  laws  of  the  nature  He  has  given  us.”  It  must 
be  remembered  then  that,  while  the  blessing  is  from  God, 
the  curse  is  from  man  himself.  The  condemned  sin¬ 
ner  has  decided  his  own  destiny.  It  is  not  as  when  the 
first  creative  fiat  of  Almighty  Charity  was  breathed  over 
the  stillness  of  the  dead  eternities  to  call  light  and  life 
and  harmony  out  of  chaos.  This  time  the  fiat  of  eternal 
death  issues  from  the  will,  not  of  the  Creator,  but  of  the 
creature,  who  has  preferred  darkness  to  light,  and  has 
deliberately  rejected  the  Love  that  wooed  but  failed  to 
win  him.  Most  entirely  would  I  repeat  and  make  my 
own  the  words  with  which  a  great  spiritual  writer  closes 
his  discussion  of  the  relative  numbers  of  the  saved:  “As 
to  those  who  may  be  lost,  I  confidently  believe  that  our 
Heavenly  Father  threw  His  arms  around  each  created 
spirit,  and  looked  it  full  in  the  face  with  bright  eyes  of 
love  in  the  darkness  of  its  mortal  life,  and  that  of  its  own 
deliberate  will  it  would  not  have  Him.” 1  Or,  as 
another  writer  puts  it:  “If  there  is  one  thing  that  is  cer¬ 
tain,  it  is  this — that  no  one  will  ever  be  punished  with 
the  positive  punishment  of  the  life  to  come  who  has  not, 
with  full  knowledge  and  complete  consciousness  and  full 
consent,  turned  his  back  upon  Almighty  God.”  2 

1  Faber,  “Creator  and  Creature,”  p.  368. 

2  Dublin  Review  (1881). 


THE  PERSONALITY  OP  THE  DEVIL. 


IF  THE  doctrine  of  Hell  is  indisputably  part  of  the 
Christian  Revelation,  it  is  certain  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  existence  and  personality  of  the  devil  is  no  less  so. 
“It  is  scarcely  conceivable  that  any  honest  believer  in 
Revelation  should  question — certainly  no  disbeliever 
would  doubt — what  is,  in  fact,  the  teaching  of  the  Bible 
on  this  subject,  reiterated  in  a  variety  of  forms,  and  with 
unmistakable  emphasis,  in  every  book  from  Genesis  to 
the  Apocalypse.” 

What  Christ  clearly  taught  throughout  the  entire 
course  of  His  ministry  is,  that  an  individual  malevolent 
power,  hostile  to  the  Creator  and  to  His  aims  respecting 
man,  and  capable,  under  certain  conditions,  of  influencing 
the  human  will,  and  having  for  his  aim  the  moral  ruin 
of  mankind,  is  engaged  in  a  fierce  and  persistent  and 
never-ceasing  conflict  with  the  world  of  which  Christ  the 
Son  of  God  and  Redeemer  is  Lord  and  Master.  This,  in 
simple  language,  is  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  the  devil, 
which  has  been  the  belief  of  the  Christian  world  for  cen¬ 
turies,  and  without  which  the  teachings  contained  in  the 
Sacred  Writings  are  simply  unintelligible. 

That  this  doctrine,  too,  should  be  assailed  and  denied 
in  the  present  day  need  not  cause  any  astonishment  to 
thoughtful  persons.  An  age  which  dissolves  the  per¬ 
sonal  God  into  a  mere  abstraction,  and  denies  the  su¬ 
premacy  of  the  human  conscience,  can  scarcely  be  ex¬ 
pected  to  believe  in  the  personality  of  the  evil  one. 
“Neither  truth,”  as  a  writer  already  quoted  very  forcibly 
observes,  “is  compatible  with  a  refusal  to  recognize  the 
Christian  idea  of  sin.”  And  that  idea  has  to  be  got 
rid  of  at  any  cost. 


82 


THE  PERSONALITY  OF  THE  DEVIL 


83 


There  can  be  little  doubt  that  modern  liberal  theology 
is  chiefly  responsible  for  this  attitude  of  mind.  It  has 
invariably  shown  a  remarkable  readiness  to  adapt  itself 
to  the  downward  religious  tendencies  of  the  age,  and  to 
furnish  the  modern  mind  with  good  and  apparently 
sound  reasons  for  getting  rid  of  the  less  convenient,  and 
certainly  unpalatable  truths  of  the  Christian  Revelation. 
And  it  is  apt  to  do  its  work  in  a  very  subtle  and  cautious 
way.  The  accuracy  of  the  biblical  statements  respecting 
the  existence  and  action  of  a  personal  evil  power  is,  for 
the  most  part,  freely  admitted,  but  these  statements  are 
interpreted  in  what  is  called  “the  light  of  modern  sci¬ 
ence,"  and  of  our  fuller  knowledge  of  ancient  religious 
beliefs  and  conceptions. 

It  is  urged  that  belief  in  a  second  personal  power  in 
the  universe,  opposing  himself  to  the  Supreme  Creator, 
and  gaining,  it  would  seem,  in  a  thousand  instances,  a 
complete  victory  over  Him,  involves  philosophical  difficul¬ 
ties  of  an  insuperable  character.  It  seems  so  much  more 
probable  that  the  Satan  of  the  New  Testament  is  the 
creature  of  man’s  own  imagination, —  a  sort  of  personi¬ 
fication  of  the  principle  of  evil — and  it  is  much  easier  to 
believe  that,  born  in  the  childhood  of  the  human  race,  he 
has  fed  and  nourished  himself  on  man’s  natural  fears 
and  ignorances,  and  that  it  is  on  utterly  false  pretences 
that  he  has  attained  to  his  present  unreasonable  and  ab¬ 
normal  dimensions.  May  we  not  assume,  moreover,  that 
Christ,  knowing  the  force  and  persistence  of  inherited 
religious  ideas  and  beliefs,  and  the  impossibility  of  effac¬ 
ing  them  during  the  few  short  years  of  His  ministry, 
accommodated  His  teaching  to  the  age  in  which  He  lived, 
and  the  people  whom  He  taught,  and  that  were  He  to  ap¬ 
pear  in  our  own  age,  and  witness  our  intellectual  ex¬ 
pansion,  He  would  give  a  very  different  account  of  the 
matter? 

It  is  thus,  that  modern  liberal  theology  traces  for  us 
the  natural  history  of  the  devil,  from  his  very  cradle 


84 


THE  PERSONALITY  OF  THE  DEVIL 


through  the  New  Testament  days,  and  the  “dark  ages” 
of  the  Christian  Church,  right  up  to  our  own  time,  and 
is  at  this  present  moment  busily  engaged  in  digging  his 
grave,  and  in  burying  him  out  of  sight. 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  how  rapidly  a  destructive 
process  of  this  kind  advances  on  its  course,  and  with 
what  eagerness  the  human  mind  seizes  upon  any  theory, 
however  shallow  and  inconsistent,  which  is  at  all  likely  to 
free  it  from  the  irksome  restraints  of  an  unwelcome  and 
inconvenient  truth.  The  doctrine  of  Hell  and  of  eternal 
punishment  abolished,  it  was  but  natural  that  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  personal  devil  should  follow  suit,  and  after 
that  who  will  be  foolish  enough  to  believe  what  Christ 
said  about  sin  and  individual  moral  responsibility  before 
God? 

But,  we  may  rightly  ask,  will  this  modern  method  of 
explaining  away  the  deeper  mystic  element  in  the  Chris¬ 
tian  teaching  permanently  satisfy  really  careful  and  con¬ 
sistent  thinkers?  Will  it  suffice  to  answer  those  deeper 
questions  which  the  inexplicable  moral  phenomena  of  life 
are  so  apt  to  awaken  in  the  mind?  With  the  removal 
of  the  devil  from  the  sphere  of  Christian  thought  will 
the  shadow  of  the  evil  one,  and  of  his  evil  world,  also 
be  removed  from  the  pathway  of  human  life? 

It  is  sometimes  forgotten  that  there  are  truths  which 
the  awakened  spiritual  nature  of  man  discerns  quite  inde¬ 
pendently  of  the  dicta  of  any  theologian,  and  that  there 
is  a  sphere  in  which  even  the  devil  does  not  leave  himself 
without  a  witness. 

But  is  it  really  a  fact  that  the  modern  intellect,  ac¬ 
customed  to  the  scientific  method  of  thought,  experiences 
an  insuperable  difficulty  in  accepting  this  doctrine  and 
that  it  has  ceased  to  believe  in  the  existence  of  the  per¬ 
sonal  devil?  Would  it  not  be  more  correct  to  say  that  it 
is  that  peculiar  kind  of  modern  intellect  which  hastily 
jumps  to  conclusions  and  which  is  not  in  the  habit  of 
thinking  very  accurately  on  any  subject,  which  experi- 


THE  PERSONALITY  OF  THE  DEVIL 


85 


ences  this  difficulty?  Is  the  scepticism  spoken  of  not 
due  to  that  false  religious  liberalism  which  Cardinal  New¬ 
man  defined  as  “the  exercise  of  thought  upon  matters  in 
which,  from  the  constitution  of  the  human  mind,  thought 
cannot  be  brought  to  any  successful  issue  and  is  there¬ 
fore  out  of  place.,,  1 

I  find  as  the  result  of  my  examination  of  this  sub¬ 
ject,  that  men  of  really  great  intellect,  who  are  certainly 
accustomed  to  the  scientific  method  of  thought,  but  who 
show  that  greatness  best  perhaps  in  the  acknowledgment 
of  its  limitations,  have  no  such  difficulty.  On  the  con¬ 
trary,  both  accurate  thought  and  careful  observation, 
lead  them  to  the  conclusion  that  the  doctrine  of  the  ex¬ 
istence  and  action  of  a  personal  evil  agency  in  the  world 
has  a  good  and  reasonable  foundation.  I  will  here  only 
quote  two  such  men  in  support  of  my  statement. 

“I  presume,”  wrote  Mr.  W.  E.  Gladstone,  “that  most 
Christians  who  watch  with  any  care  their  own  mental 
and  inward  experience,  are  but  too  well  convinced  that 
they  have  to  do  with  ‘principalities  and  powers,  the  rulers 
of  the  darkness  of  this  world’;  that  they  are  beset  by  a 
great  'personal  scheme  of  evil  agency ,  under  which  method 
and  vigilance,  employing  whatever  bad  means,  or  even 
good,  will  serve  their  purpose,  are  raised  in  their  work  of 
seduction  and  ruin  to  what  seems  a  terrible  perfection.” 

The  late  Sir  James  Risdon  Bennett,  M.  D.,  F.  R.  S., 
ex-President  of  the  Royal  College  of  Physicians,  wrote: 

“It  may  be  admitted  that  there  is  not  a  little  in  the 
manifestations  of  many  cases  of  lunacy  that  may  well 
give  rise  to  the  question  whether  Satanic  agency  has  not 
some  part  therein.  Religious  men  of  the  most  irre¬ 
proachable  character  and  women  of  unsullied  purity  of 
thought  and  habit  will  use  language,  entertain  ideas  and 
manifest  conduct  altogether  opposed  to  their  character 


1  Apologia.”  Edit:  igoo,  p.  228. 


86 


THE  PERSONALITY  OF  THE  DEVIL 


in  a  sane  state  and  which  becomes  the  source  of  the  ut¬ 
most  pain  and  distress  of  mind  when  restored  to  reason.” 

Again  must  it  not  be  admitted  that  the  difficulty  which 
the  doctrine  is  declared  to  present  to  intelligent  minds  is 
due  to  a  misrepresentation  of  it  and  to  its  familiar  popu¬ 
lar  coloring  rather  than  to  the  doctrine  itself?  Can  it 
be  said  to  be  contrary  to  right  reason? 

Reduced  to  their  simple  and  fundamental  principles 
what  are  the  truths  which  Historical  Christianity  pre¬ 
sents  for  our  acceptance  and  of  which  the  doctrine  of  the 
personal  devil  forms  part? 

Natural  religion  (expressed  in  the  manifestations  of 
conscience  and  moral  intuitions)  teaches  man  that  the 
true  end  of  life  is  a  spiritual  one.  Nothing  here  on 
earth  wholly  satisfies.  Reason  itself  insists  that,  given 
the  existence  of  God,  the  daily  eating  and  drinking  and 
the  pursuit  of  the  trivial  interests  of  life  cannot  pos¬ 
sibly  be  its  ultimate  aim  and  purpose.  Supernatural 
Religion,  i.  e.,  Christianity,  authoritatively  confirms  and 
emphasizes  this,  but  at  the  same  time  declares  that,  by 
reason  of  man’s  peculiar  constitution  and  composite  na- 
tue,  the  attainment  of  this  supernatural  end  is  necessar¬ 
ily  a  difficult  matter.  There  are  forces  and  influences 
at  work  which  are  calculated  to  prevent  and  hinder  this 
attainment.  Failure  to  attain  therefore  is,  from  the  very 
nature  of  the  case,  possible. 

Some  of  these  hindering  forces  are  natural.  They 
have  their  origin  in  our  present  bodily  state.  They  oper¬ 
ate  in  the  form  of  love  of  ease  and  of  physical  delights,  of 
temporal  desires  and  ambitions,  of  an  innate  aversion  to 
spiritual  exercises  such  as  prayer,  self-denial  and  self- 
discipline,  mortification,  etc.  Some  are  clearly  beyond 
nature.  They  take  the  form  of  terrible  temptations,  of 
an  enticement  to  things  which  the  better  nature  abhors 
but  respecting  which  the  mind  is  misled  and  the  judgment 
is  distorted.  For  composite  beings,  such  as  we  are,  the 
present  life  and  state  necessarily  constitute  the  sphere  in 


THE  PERSONALITY  OF  THE  DEVIL 


87 


which  the  conflict  between  these  opposing  forces  must  be 
carried  on  and  in  which  some  kind  of  terminus  and  de¬ 
cisive  attitude  one  way  or  the  other  must  be  reached. 

Now  is  it  really  more  reasonable  to  attribute  these 
latter  forces,  so  fierce  and  persistent  in  their  character, 
to  mechanical  causes  rather  than  to  an  intelligent  one? 
Do  they  not  find  their  fullest  and  most  adequate  explan¬ 
ation  in  assuming  the  existence  and  action  of  a  mind  and 
will  in  opposition  to  the  supreme  good  and  ever  seeking 
to  thwart  the  purposes  of  God  in  creation? 

In  any  case  must  it  not  be  admitted  that,  in  most  in¬ 
stances,  these  assaults  are  cleverly  and  ingeniously  di¬ 
rected,  sometimes  wholly  against  our  wills,  with  a  cer¬ 
tain  end  in  view  and  in  conformity  with  individual  tem¬ 
perament  and  character  and  disposition?  Are  we  not 
sometimes  startled  by  the  strangeness  and  suddenness  of 
the  assaults  and  by  the  cunning  craftiness  which  they  dis¬ 
close? 

We  speak  with  horror  of  the  atrocities  of  wicked  men 
and  of  the  records  of  vice  and  sin  which  disfigure  human 
history  and  disgrace  human  nature.  We  are  willing  to 
admit  that  human  nature  is  weak  and  altogether  imper¬ 
fect.  But  if  all  these  crimes  and  vices  are  to  be  at¬ 
tributed  to  that  human  nature,  in  its  constitutional  mani¬ 
festations,  without  some  external  agency  inciting  and 
stimulating  it,  what  would  our  verdict  have  to  be? 
Would  we  not  have  to  pronounce  it  as  simply  horrible 
and  diabolical  in  its  essential  tendencies  and  character¬ 
istics? 

This  is  a  difficulty  which  does  not  seem  to  present  it¬ 
self  to  the  minds  of  some  of  our  modern  philosophers  who 
certainly  do  not  realize  that  their  lofty  dismissal  of  this 
fundamental  truth  leads  them  into  infinitely  greater  in¬ 
tellectual  and  moral  perplexities  than  those  which  they 
are  attempting  to  solve. 

The  primitive  man  never  had  a  doubt  about  the  mat¬ 
ter.  The  modern  civilized  man  would  not  doubt,  if  he 


88 


THE  PERSONALITY  OF  THE  DEVIL 


really  thought  seriously  about  it  and  if  he  obeyed  the  dic¬ 
tates  of  his  intuition.  He  would  probably  admit  the 
more  than  probability  of  an  intelligence  working  behind 
these  manifestations  of  human  nature.  But,  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  such  an  intelligence  being  a  truth  of  Revelation, 
and  belief  in  Revelation  being  in  some  quarters  held  to 
be  an  unscientific  attitude  of  mind,  he  doubts  and  equivo¬ 
cates  and  finds  refuge  in  a  meaningless  but  fashionable 
phraseology. 

This,  it  seems  to  me,  is  the  modern  difficulty  in  a  nut¬ 
shell.  There  is  a  scientific  ring  about  it;  when  it  is  ex¬ 
amined,  however,  it  is  found  to  be  utterly  unscientific  and 
irrational.  Intelligent  effects  and  modes  of  operation 
must  have  an  intelligent  cause,  and  since  that  intelligent 
cause  can  be  neither  God  nor  the  human  mind  itself,  it 
must  be  some  other  mind. 

This  conclusion,  I  cannot  help  thinking,  must  be  the 
result  of  any  consistent  and  accurate  mode  of  reasoning, 
and  I  for  one  fail  to  see  where  the  flaw  in  the  argument 
lies.  In  the  matter  of  the  moral  hindrances  which  op¬ 
pose  themselves  to  the  soul's  progress  and  development 
we  would  surely  have  to  recognize  the  action  of  an  intel¬ 
ligent  mind,  and  of  purpose  and  direction,  had  Christian¬ 
ity  never  made  any  disclosure  on  the  subject. 

In  recent  years  many  ingenious  theories  have  been 
propounded,  seeking,  in  various  ways,  to  explain  and  ac¬ 
count  for  the  mystery  of  evil  which  is  seen  to  be  at  work 
in  the  world  and  in  mankind.  But  can  it  be  said  that 
any  one  of  them  has  solved  the  perplexing  problem  and 
has  suggested  an  explanation  which  is  really  satisfactory 
to  our  reason  when  it  is  freely  exercised?  Must  we  not 
admit  that,  when  all  is  said  and  done,  and  when  all  the 
facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  are  fairly  and  fully 
considered,  the  Christian  explanation  remains  the  most 
reasonable  one  of  them  all?  A  very  suggestive  writer 
has  given  expression  to  this  thought  in  an  interesting 
work  entitled  “Evil  and  Evolution."  The  book  is  an  at- 


THE  PERSONALITY  OF  THE  DEVIL 


89 


tempt  to  turn  the  light  of  modern  science  on  the  ancient 
mystery  of  evil,  and  the  conclusions  arrived  at  by  its  au¬ 
thor  are  wholly  in  favor  of  the  personal  devil  as  he  is 
presented  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures.  The  writer  points 
out  that  of  the  three  possible  theories  respecting  the  ori¬ 
gin  of  evil,  the  Biblical  is  the  best  and  only  reasonable 
one.  It  is  the  one,  we  may  safely  add,  most  completely 
in  accord  with  the  discoveries  of  recent  psychical  science. 

“Assume,”  he  says,  “that  the  Creator  had  an  abso¬ 
lutely  perfect  scheme,  vast  and  intricate  beyond  all  hu¬ 
man  thought,  beautifully  harmonized,  delicately  poised 
and  adjusted  down  to  its  most  minute  detail,  and  all  for 
the  health  and  happiness  of  countless  generations  of  life, 
and  assume  that  a  malignant  intelligence  brings  all  the  re¬ 
sources  of  his  malignity  and  intellect  to  the  task  of  dis¬ 
turbing  that  nicety  of  balance  and  adjustment,  and  in  the 
world  around  us  you  have  exactly  what  might  be  ex¬ 
pected.”  *  *  *  “What  I  am  now  trying  to  show  is, 

that  we  are  surrounded  by  manifestaions  of  evil  which 
there  is  no  possibility  of  reconciling  with  any  Providen¬ 
tial  government  that  is  at  the  same  time  absolute  in  wis¬ 
dom  and  goodness  and  almighty  in  power,  and  that  none 
of  the  orthodox  solutions  of  the  riddle  can  be  accepted, 
except  the  most  orthodox  of  them  all,  the  actual  existence 
of  satan.” 

It  is  impossible  to  doubt  that  these  sentiments  will 
be  echoed  by  numbers  of  really  thoughtful  but  distressed 
minds,  who  have  found  themselves  face  to  face  with  this 
great  problem,  and  who  have  not  been  able  to  escape  the 
dreadful  alternative. 

Those  ardent  would-be  religious  reformers  oo  whom 
the  old-world  beliefs  are  merely  reflections  of  human 
weakness  and  ignorance,  and  who  welcome  in  modern  un¬ 
belief  and  misbelief  the  liberation  of  reason  and  intellect, 
are  sometmies  strangely  illogical  and  inconsistent  in  their 
assumptions  and  reasonings.  They  are  ready  enough  to 
proclaim  the  untenableness  of  ideas  involving,  in  their 


90 


THE  PERSONALITY  OF  THE  DEVIL 


opinion,  insuperable  intellectual  difficulties,  but  they  seem 
to  be  quite  unconscious  of  the  fact  that  the  difficulties 
which  they  are  thus  introducing  are  really  infinitely 
greater.  They  certainly  do  not  follow  their  flimsy  theo¬ 
ries  to  their  legitimate  and  logical  conclusion.  “In  the 
blindest  of  optimism,”  says  the  same  author,  “they  are 
preaching  a  God  of  goodness  and  gentleness  and  love, 
while  the  real  God,  that  science  seems  to  be  more  and 
more  revealing,  is  that  horrid  nightmare,  the  God  of  evo¬ 
lution,  whose  schemes  have  been  drawn  in  lines  of  blood 
and  tears,  to  whom  nations  are  but  dust  beneath  His  feet, 
whose  trusty  ministers  are  war  and  pestilence  and  famine, 
whose  laws  are  pitiless  as  death,  and  as  irresistible  as  the 
storm.”  1 

And  what  are  we  to  think  of  the  words  of  Christ? 
How  are  we  to  reconcile  these  modern  views  with  the 
character  of  Him  in  whose  mouth  there  was  no  lie.  If 
the  language  of  man  can  convey  any  truth  at  all,  His 
language  surely  conveyed  the  idea  that  there  is  a  per¬ 
sonal  devil,  that  he  is  our  strongest  and  most  danger¬ 
ous  enemy,  and  that  one  of  our  greatest  perils  lies  in 
our  natural  disposition  to  ignore  or  disbelieve  His  exist¬ 
ence.  In  any  case,  if  Christ  was  God,  surely  He  must 
have  known  whether  there  is  a  devil  or  not.  If  He 
knew  there  was  not,  how  could  He  have  used  language 
such  as  He  did,  seeing  that  He  came,  not  to  confirm  man’s 
ignorances  and  misbeliefs,  but  to  remove  and  abolish 
them,  and  to  teach  him  the  truth  concerning  his  soul  and 
his  soul’s  life.  Here,  too,  liberal  theology  surely  en¬ 
tangles  us  in  a  hopeless  and  bewildering  maze  out  of 
which  there  is  no  rational  and  honorable  way  of  escape. 

Really  thoughtful  men,  therefore,  will  admit  with  the 
author  already  quoted  “that  *  *  *  to  eliminate  Satan  is 
to  make  the  moral  chaos  around  us  more  chaotic,  the 
darkness  more  impenetrable,  the  great  riddle  of  the  uni- 


1  “Evil  and  Evolution,”  p.  203. 


THE  PERSONALITY  OF  THE  DEVIL 


91 


verse  more  hopelessly  insoluble.  So  far  from  a  belief  in 
a  devil  complicating  matters,  it  is,  *  *  *  the  only  condi¬ 
tion  upon  which  it  is  possible  to  believe  in  a  beneficent 
God.” 

But  the  widespread  rejection  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
personal  devil  is  probably  far  more  due  to  that  modern 
mania  for  what  is  “scientific”  and  “liberal”  in  thought, 
than  to  any  inherent  intellectual  difficulty  presented  by 
the  doctrine  itself.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  numbers  of 
persons  do  not  think  very  deeply  about  the  subject  at  all, 
but  are  content  to  echo  and,  to  adopt,  the  ideas  and  theo¬ 
ries  which  happen  to  be  the  accepted  and  dominant  ones 
for  the  time  being.  To  the  majority  of  men  it  is  prob¬ 
ably  an  intense  relief  to  get  rid  of  the  devil,  and  to  get 
rid  of  him  on  the  authority  of  their  own  appointed  and  au¬ 
thorized  teachers.  They  certainly  are  not  sufficiently  in¬ 
terested  in  the  matter  to  think  out  and  to  face  the  greater 
intellectual  and  moral  difficulties  which  that  denial  in¬ 
volves. 

And  so  far  as  the  most  recent  science  is  concerned  un¬ 
orthodox  theology  can  scarcely  hope  for  continued  sup¬ 
port  from  that  quarter.  Science,  as  all  accurately  in¬ 
formed  persons  know,  has  in  recent  times  performed  one 
of  its  familiar  feats  of  mental  gymnastics  and  has  swung 
round  from  a  materialistic  to  a  very  definitely  spiritual¬ 
istic  form  of  thought.  The  existence  of  an  unseen  spir¬ 
itual  world  and  of  spiritual  beings — in  some  instances  of 
an  admittedly  evil  and  malignant  character — is  prac¬ 
tically  demonstrated.  And  the  step  from  this  admis¬ 
sion  to  the  recognition  of  a  superior  mind,  directing  these 
evil  and  hostile  forces,  is  surely  not  a  very  big  one. 
I,  for  one,  am  profoundly  convinced  that  true  psychology 
will,  in  the  course  of  time,  be  found  to  be  an  aid  to  the 
belief  in  Historical  Christianity,  in  a  sense  and  to  a  de¬ 
gree,  which  few  persons  can  imagine  at  the  present  mo¬ 
ment.  Indications  of  the  direction  in  which  true  scientific 
thought  is  traveling  today  are  evident  on  every  hand. 


92 


THE  PERSONALITY  OF  THE  DEVIL 


Fuller  statements  on  this  subject  will  be  found  in  the 
concluding  chapter  of  this  book. 

In  his  review  of  Flournoy’s  “Spiritism  and  Psychol¬ 
ogy/'  1  the  late  Mr.  Andrew  Lang  made  the  following  sug¬ 
gestive  statement: 

“In  my  opinion,  if  Mr.  Myers  is  not  at  the  bottom 
of  it  [of  the  attempt  to  establish  his  survival  and  iden¬ 
tity  by  means  of  ‘cross  correspondence’],  some  one  whom 
our  rude  forefathers  would  have  called  ‘the  devil’  is;  or, 
at  least,  something  which  is  quite  as  unwelcome  to  sci¬ 
ence.”  (i.  e.,  antiquated  science) . 

The  familiar  question :  Why,  then,  does  not  God  exer¬ 
cise  His  almighty  power  and  destroy  Satan?  is  a  ques¬ 
tion  which  we  cannot  hope  and  cannot  be  expected  to  an¬ 
swer.  It  touches  that  fundamental  secret  of  the  uni¬ 
verse  which  clearly  lies  beyond  our  ken.  We  might  ask 
the  further  question :  Why  does  not  God  destroy  us  when 
we  sin?  why  does  He  tolerate  evil  at  all? 

It  is  conceivable  that  to  destroy  it  and  Satan  would 
be  contrary  to  the  fixed  laws  of  the  moral  universe,  and 
would  mean  the  destruction  of  man’s  free  will,  in  the  in¬ 
scrutable  mystery  of  which  evil  originated. 

For  the  same  reason,  belief  in  the  existence  of  the 
devil  cannot  be  said  to  lay  upon  us  the  necessity  of  ac¬ 
counting  for  the  “how”  of  his  existence.  We  believe 
in  God  without  being  able,  and  without  ever  hoping  to 
be  able,  in  any  sense  to  fathom  the  mystery  of  His  be¬ 
ing.  We  believe  in  Him  because  we  trace  His  action 
both  in  the  physical  universe  and  in  the  hidden  world  of 
our  inner  life.  In  the  same  way  there  is  nothing  against 
reason  in  acknowledging  the  existence  and  action  of  a 
personal  evil  power,  even  though  we  are  unable  scientifi¬ 
cally  to  explain  his  origin  and  the  “how”  of  his  exist¬ 
ence.  The  scriptural  explanation  is  both  a  reasonable 
and  a  sufficient  one,  and  it  is  accepted  where  prejudice 


1  “Morning  Post,”  Nov.  20,  19 11. 


THE  PERSONALITY  OF  THE  DEVIL 


93 


and  a  false  method  of  philosophy  have  not  barred  the 
way. 

“How  Satan  exists,”  writes  a  well-known  theolog¬ 
ian,  1  “or  where  at  the  present  time  or  how  his  power 
avails,  as  we  are  told  it  does,  to  contrive  to  suggest  temp¬ 
tation  to  the  mind  of  man,  and  to  what  extent  he  is  aware 
of  what  is  passing  in  men’s  minds,  so  as  to  adapt  his 
suggestions  to  their  weakness,  we  are  not  told,  and  do 
not  therefore  know.  But  our  not  being  told  the  manner 
in  which  his  power  is  being  exercised  and  brought  to  bear, 
is  no  proof  of  the  unreality  of  that  fearful  being  who  is 
everywhere  in  the  New  Testament  exhibited  as  the  ad¬ 
versary  of  God  and  goodness,  whether  in  the  individual 
or  in  the  development  of  the  human  race.” 

But  it  is  impossible  to  sum  up  the  argument  of  this 
chapter  in  clearer  and  more  effective  language  than  that 
employed  by  the  author  of  “Evil  and  Evolution.”  “If 
you  admit,”  he  says,  “the  creative  power  and  the  benefi¬ 
cence  of  God,  I  cannot  for  the  life  of  me  see  why  you 
may  not  admit  the  possibility  of  the  existence,  the  power, 
and  the  malevolence  of  a  devil,  and  I  maintain  that  all 
the  probabilities  are  in  favor  of  the  assumption  that  the 
maladjustments  in  the  scheme  of  creation  are  due  to  the 
agency  of  Satan,  and  are  in  no  way  to  be  ascribed  either 
to  the  indifference  or  the  insufficiency,  or,  worse  than  all, 
to  the  deliberate  purpose  of  the  Creator.  That  there  is 
a  conflict  between  good  and  evil  raging  all  around  us 
and  within  us  is  only  too  evident.” 


1  Rev.  C.  Reichel,  B.  D. 


MANIFESTATIONS  OF  AN  EVIL  SPIRIT- 

WORLD. 


IT  IS  a  very  remarkable  circumstance  that,  concur¬ 
rently  with  the  growth  of  the  modern  school  of  de¬ 
structive  theology,  there  has  arisen  a  movement  of 
thought  which  is  tending  in  a  very  different  and,  indeed, 
opposite  direction.  This  movement  has  now  been  going 
on,  for  a  considerable  number  of  years;  it  is  counting 
amongst  its  adherents  some  of  the  most  prominent  men 
in  science  and  in  literature,  and  it  is  arousing  the  in¬ 
terest  of  thoughtful  minds  in  all  classes  and  conditions 
of  society.  Its  origin  is  due  to  the  systematic  study  and 
observation  of  certain  abnormal  psychical  phenomena,  the 
occurrence  of  which  orthodox  science  cannot  explain,  but 
the  reality  of  which  it  finds  itself  compelled  to  admit. 

It  is  not  here  the  place  or  the  occasion  to  speak  of 
these  phenomena  in  detail  or  to  describe  the  conditions 
under  which  they  occur. 1  It  is  sufficient  to  point  out 
that  they  have  been  observed  by  men  of  prominent  scien¬ 
tific  standing  and  of  world-wide  reputation  and  that  the 
testimony  respecting  them  is  practically  unanimous.  In¬ 
deed  so  exceptionally  strong  is  the  evidence  today  that 
the  skeptical  attitude  of  mind  can  no  longer  be  regarded 
as  a  sign  of  superior  intelligence  but  of  being  very  im¬ 
perfectly  informed.  The  skeptics  are  those  who  are 
either  ignorant  of  the  facts  which  patient  research  has 
ascertained,  or  whose  judgment  is  based  upon  pre-suppo¬ 
sition  and  a  priori  reasoning. 

“I  have  never  yet  known  or  heard  of  any  inquirer,” 
writes  a  well-known  student  of  psychical  phenomena,  2 


1  See  :  “Modern  Spiritism.” 

2  J.  H.  Hill  of  the  Society  for  Psychical  Research. 


94 


AN  EVIL  SPIRIT-WORLD 


95 


“who  has  followed  up  the  research  with  honest  care  and 
vigor  without  becoming  convinced  that  things  do  happen 
which  ‘common  sense’  cannot  explain.” 

The  conclusions  of  informed  scientific  thought  may  be 
summed  up  in  the  words  of  two  scientific  men  of  note 
who  have  devoted  many  years  of  patient  study  to  the 
subject. 

“We  see  then,”  writes  Dr.  J.  Venzano, 1  “that  for 
the  executions  of  these  manifestations,  a  fresh  personal¬ 
ity  and  a  fresh  will  must  have  intervened,  independent 
of  our  own  and  in  manifest  opposition  to  the  will  of  the 
medium;  a  will,  the  genesis  of  which  is  unknown  to  us, 
and  for  which,  as  we  do  not  wish  to  overstep  the  limits 
of  admitted  scientific  possibility,  we  abandon  the  search.” 

“All  that  I  am  prepared  to  assert  from  my  own  ex¬ 
perience,”  says  Sir  W.  F.  Barrett,  2  “is,  that  neither 
hallucination,  imposture,  mal-observation,  mis-descrip- 
tion,  nor  any  other  well-recognized  cause  can  account  for 
the  phenomena  which  I  have  witnessed,  and  that  the  sim¬ 
plest  explanation  is  the  spirit-hypothesis.” 

In  other  words,  the  existence  of  a  spirit- wo  rid  and  of 
spirit-beings,  capable  of  acting  upon  our  present  life  and 
of  influencing  human  thought  and  character  is  an  admit¬ 
ted  fact.  No  theory,  seeking  to  account  for  some  of  the 
phenomena  observed  on  purely  natural  grounds,  can  any 
longer  be  admitted. 

Now  it  is  quite  certain,  and  indeed  abundant  evi¬ 
dence  exists  for  this  statement,  that  any  accurate  sum¬ 
mary  of  the  facts  ascertained  and  of  the  phenomena  ob¬ 
served  would  have  to  include  the  following  admission: 

BEINGS  OF  AN  EVIL  NATURE,  AND  OPERATING  WITH  A 
MANIFESTLY  EVIL  INTENT,  EXIST  IN  THE  SPIRIT-WORLD. 


1  An  Italian  physician  of  note. 

2  Professor  of  Experimental  Physics  in  the  Royal  College  of 

Science  in  Ireland. 


96 


AN  EVIL  SPIRIT-WORLD 


It  has  been  found  wholly  impossible  to  deny  or  ig¬ 
nore  this  transparent  fact.  And  it  is  now  admitted  by 
all  honest  scientific  and  unscientific  enquirers.  Indeed  all 
modern  spiritistic  literature  is  full  of  it.  There  are  few 
persons  today,  who  do  not  know,  or  who  have  not  heard 
of  enquirers  who,  after  a  period  of  great  devotion  to  the 
cause,  and  of  earnest,  painstaking  investigation,  have 
abandoned  it  because  of  the  evils  and  perils  which  have 
been  found  to  attend  it.  There  are  at  this  present  mo¬ 
ment  numerous  families  in  England  who  have  tales  to 
tell  of  utter  misery  and  sorrow  brought  on  through  the 
spiritistic  seance,  and  through  intercourse  with  the  mys¬ 
terious  agents  who  are  drawn  into  the  sphere  of  human 
life  by  these  means.  Spiritism,  as  all  accurately  in¬ 
formed  persons  know,  is,  in  our  time,  working  unspeak¬ 
able  mischief  and  moral  evil  in  a  thousand  homes,  both 
here  and  in  other  countries. 

It  is  utterly  useless  to  deny  all  this.  The  evidence  is 
too  clear  and  abundant  to  be  resisted,  and  it  is  increas¬ 
ing  day  by  day.  The  evil  element,  as  thousands  know 
to  their  cost,  has  a  way  of  hiding  itself  at  the  outset;  it 
is,  in  some  instances,  even  apt  to  remain  concealed 
throughout  many  years  of  enquiry,  but  an  hour  or  a  mo¬ 
ment  almost  always  comes  when  it  discloses  itself,  either 
by  some  subtle  and  pernicious  influence  exercised  upon 
the  unsuspecting  mind,  or  in  some  more  direct  and  start¬ 
ling  and  even  objective  manner. 

The  champions  of  spiritism  and  many  psychical  re¬ 
searchers  who  are  determined  to  see  in  Spiritism  the 
dawn  of  a  new  and  “rational”  religion,  calculated  to  ef¬ 
face  or  at  least  to  modify  the  historic  Christian  Creed, 
have  suggested  some  plausible  theories  to  account  for  this 
evil  element  in  these  phenomena;  but  none  can  or  do 
deny  it. 

In  most  instances  these  spirits  claim  to  be  the  sur¬ 
viving  souls  of  deceased  human  beings.  They  are  famil¬ 
iar  with  the  conditions  of  our  earth-life.  They  under- 


AN  EVIL  SPIRIT-WORLD 


97 


stand  our  language,  our  modes  of  thought  and  expres¬ 
sion  and  exhibit  many  of  those  characteristics  which  we 
are  apt  to  associate  with  certain  deceased  personalities. 
Sometimes  they  present  even  the  physical  forms  and  fea¬ 
tures  of  the  dead. 

And  they  are  apt  to  speak  in  high-flown  language 
of  the  wonderful  life  of  the  spirit-spheres,  and  of  the 
progressive  development  through  which  they  themselves 
are  passing.  When  they  are  closly  questioned,  however, 
and  their  statements  and  doings  are  systematically  scrut¬ 
inized  and  examined,  they  give  little  evidence  of  any  such 
progress.  There  are  numerous  instances  on  record  in 
which  the  same  intelligences  have  communicated  through 
the  same  medium  for  a  number  of  years,  but  their  tone 
and  moral  character  have  remained  practically  un¬ 
changed.  They  are  as  absurd  and  frivolous  and  mis¬ 
chievous  as  they  were  when  they  first  gave  evidence  of 
their  presence.  When  hard-pressed,  they  almost  always 
admit  that  they  are  utterly  unhappy  and  miserable,  and 
they  invariably  request  that  prayers  should  be  offered  on 
their  behalf,  even  though  they  appear  to  be  quite  ignor¬ 
ant  as  to  whether  these  prayers  are  likely  to  avail  them 
or  not. 

The  communications  received  from  these  “familiar 
spirits,”  although  sometimes  very  lofty  in  their  tone, 
are  not  such  as  we  might  reasonably  expect  from  be¬ 
ings  who  are  imbued  with  a  sense  of  the  seriousness 
of  life,  and  whose  moral  condition  is  one  of  progressive 
development.  They  have  all  the  appearance  of  emanat¬ 
ing  from  superior  but  fallen  intelligences,  who  are  not  in 
harmony  with  the  Creator’s  purposes  in  the  universe  and 
whose  ultimate  aim  is  to  defeat  and  thwart  those  pur¬ 
poses. 

“The  contribution  of  these  entities  to  religion  includes 
the  practical  abolition  of  the  Ten  Commandments,  the  in¬ 
troduction  of  revolting  heresies  into  Christianity,  and 
the  propagation  of  heathenism  and  atheism.  All  that  we 


98 


AN  EVIL  SPIRIT-WORLD 


know  of  disembodied  intelligences  is  that  they  are  intel¬ 
lectually  contemptible  and  that  their  influence  makes  for 
the  destruction  of  religion  and  morality.”  1 

Another  evidence  of  the  evil  character  of  these  in¬ 
telligences  is  their  constant  attempts  at  deception  and 
personation.  This  is  probably  one  of  the  most  familiar 
and  well-known  characteristics  of  the  phenomena  of  mod¬ 
ern  spiritism  and  psychical  research.  It  can  be  traced 
throughout  its  entire  literature  of  both  past  and  present 
times,  and  no  experienced  spiritist  denies  it.  The  amaz¬ 
ing  thing  is,  that  this  peculiar  characteristic  too  does  not 
disconcert  them,  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  they  make 
every  effort  to  ignore  it  or  to  explain  it  away.  Many  in¬ 
stances  of  the  most  heartless  and  cruel  deception  of  this 
kind  have,  in  the  course  of  years,  become  known  to  the 
present  writer, 2  and  if  a  record  were  made  of  such 
cases,  there  is  not  a  spiritist  in  the  world  who  could  not, 
from  his  own  experience,  contribute  liberally  toward  it. 

In  some  instances  deceased  relatives  are  personated 
in  a  manner  exhibiting  so  much  ingenuity,  and  such  inti¬ 
mate  acquaintance  with  their  past  history  and  their  mode 
of  thought,  that  the  most  careful  and  cautious  enquirer 
is  apt  to  be  deceived.  Unhappily,  in  the  majority  of 
cases,  the  deception  is  only  discovered  when  it  is  too  late, 
and  when  unspeakable  mischief  has  already  been  wrought. 
Indeed,  so  well-known  is  this  deliberate  attempt  of  the 
spirits  to  deceive,  that  a  theory  has  been  suggested  which 
seeks  to  explain  the  phenomenon  by  the  action  of  a  sub¬ 
conscious  faculty  of  the  enquirer’s  own  mind,  set  to  work 
in  some  occult  and  mysterious  way.  And  it  is  surely 
highly  instructive  and  suggestive  to  read  what  so  great 
an  authority  as  the  late  Professor  Alfred  Russell  Wallace 
thought  on  this  subject.  Speaking  of  the  theory  of  the  sec¬ 
ond  self,  he  says :  “The  stupendous  difficulty — that,  if  these 


1  “Occultism  in  Psychical  Research.” 

2  See:  “The  Dangers  of  Spiritualism.” 


AN  EVIL  SPIRIT-WORLD 


99 


phenomena  and  these  tests  are  to  be  all  attributed  to  the 
‘second  self'  of  living  persons,  then  that  second  self  is  al¬ 
most  always  a  deceiving  and  a  lying  self,  however  moral 
and  truthful  the  visible  and  tangible  first  self  may  be — 
has,  so  far  as  I  know,  never  been  rationally  explained; 
yet  this  cumbrous  and  unintelligible  hypothesis  finds 
great  favor  with  those  who  have  always  been  accustomed 
to  regard  the  belief  in  a  spirit-world,  as  unscientific,  un- 
philosophical  and  superstitious.”  1 

The  evil  nature  and  disposition  of  these  strange  be¬ 
ings  is  further  evident  from  the  subtle  influence  which 
thy  are  apt  to  exercise  upon  the  minds  of  enquirers. 

It  is  not  too  much  to  say,  that  this  influence  is  almost 
always  demoralizing  in  its  tendency.  Its  peculiar  danger 
lies  in  the  fact  that  it  is  so  subtle  in  its  operations  that 
it  may  continue  for  years,  while  the  victim  himself  may 
be  quite  unconscious  of  it.  In  some  cases  any  sugges¬ 
tion  of  such  an  influence  being  exercised  is  vehemently 
denied  by  the  persons  concerned,  even  though  the  fact 
may  be  fully  apparent  to  any  outside  observer.  Numer¬ 
ous  instances  might  be  adduced  to  demonstrate  the  truth 
of  this  assertion. 

Sometimes  this  demoralizing  influence  is  exhibited  in 
a  general  loss  of  moral  tone,  and  of  the  sense  of  moral 
responsibility,  the  victim’s  mind  becoming  wholly  dom¬ 
inated  by  the  thoughts  and  ideas  of  the  particular  intel¬ 
ligence  controlling  it  and  obeying  its  every  suggestion 
and  prompting.  Sometimes  the  innate  faculty  of  distin¬ 
guishing  between  right  and  wrong  is  paralyzed  or  per¬ 
verted,  and  a  complete  transformation  of  the  tempera¬ 
ment  and  moral  character  is  effected.  In  other  instances 
an  indescribable  weariness  of  life,  prompting  to  despond¬ 
ency  and  self-destruction,  are  the  characteristic  symp¬ 
toms. 


1  From  a  Paper  read  before  the  Chicago  Congress. 


100 


AN  EVIL  SPIRIT-WORLD 


I  have  had  occasion  to  personally  study  and  observe 
many  cases  of  this  kind. 

A  well-known  student  of  the  psychical  movement, 1 
who  devoted  much  time  and  thought  to  this  aspect  of  the 
subject,  wrote  as  follows: 

“Intercourse  with  the  spirits  is,  in  this  respect  in 
the  moral  world,  what  eating  opium  is  in  the  physical 
world.  Opium  destroys  the  healthy  action  of  the  nat¬ 
ural  powers,  and  the  attenuated  frame  and  feeble  gait 
soon  bear  witness  to  the  ruinous  effect  of  the  poisonous 
drug  which  at  first  produced  such  delicious  and  sooth¬ 
ing  effects.  So  it  is  with  spiritualism.  At  first  the 
eagerness  of  awakened  curiosity,  and  the  sweetness  of 
the  forbidden  fruit,  then  a  sort  of  paralysis  of  the  spir¬ 
itual  power,  inability  to  make  any  advance,  disgust  and 
depression  which  the  miserable  victim  seeks  in  vain  to 
ayert  by  a  still  closer  intercourse  with  the  world  of 
spirits.  *  *  *  One  other  consequence  follows  occa¬ 

sionally  from  this  dealing  with  the  spirits,  and  that  is  a 
rush  of  abominable  and  wicked  imaginations.  One  au¬ 
thentic  instance  I  have  heard  of,  in  which  this  was  hap¬ 
pily  the  means  of  inducing  a  young  lady  to  give  up  the 
practice  of  spiritualism.  In  another  case  it  was  not 
merely  evil  thoughts  that  were  suggested  by  the  spirits; 
they  led  on  those  who  had  intercourse  with  them  to  evil 
actions  also.” 

But,  as  the  force  of  statements  emanating  from  the 
orthodox  religious  quarter  represented  by  this  author  is 
apt  to  be  diminished  by  the  charge  of  bigotry  and  relig¬ 
ious  prejudice,  it  may  be  well  to  quote  what  a  man  of 
physical  science  says  on  the  subject: 

“Of  course,”  writes  Professor  Sir  Wm.  Barrett,  “it  is 
true  now,  as  then,  that  these  practices  are  dangerous  in 
proportion  as  they  lead  us  to  surrender  our  reason,  or 
our  will,  to  the  dictates  of  an  invisible  and  oftentimes 


1  The  late  Rev.  R.  F.  Clarke,  S.  J. 


AN  EVIL  SPIRIT-WORLD 


101 


masquerading  spirit,  or  as  they  absorb  and  engross  us 
to  the  neglect  of  our  daily  duties,  or  as  they  tempt  us  to 
forsake  the  sure  but  arduous  pathway  of  knowledge  and 
of  progress  for  an  enticing  maze,  which  lures  us  round 
and  round.’' 1 

It  is  surely  impossible  to  overrate  the  significance  of 
these  weighty  words,  coming  as  they  do  from  so  eminent 
an  authority,  who  has  been  a  patient  and  painstaking 
student  of  the  subject  for  a  number  of  years,  and  who 
views  it,  not  from  the  standpoint  of  a  “narrow  dogmat¬ 
ism,”  but  from  that  of  physical  science,  and  who,  we  may 
fairly  suppose,  started  on  his  enquiry  with  no  pre-con- 
ceived  idea  or  prejudice  on  the  subject.  They  will  be 
echoed  by  all  who  have  an  accurate  acquaintance  with 
the  subject. 

It  has  become  the  custom  of  modern  thinkers  to  speak 
and  write  contemptuously  of  the  views  expressed  by  the 
older  theologians  respecting  these  phenomena.  Belief  in 
the  existence  and  action  upon  human  nature  of  a  demonic 
world  and  of  beings  assuming  the  forms  of  the  dead,  has 
come  to  be  regarded  as  the  sign  of  a  fanatical  tone  of 
mind  and  an  out-of-date  system  of  Christian  thought. 
Our  higher  culture  and  better  scientific  knowledge  are 
supposed  to  have  permanently  disposed  of  these  old-world 
beliefs.  But  few  persons  are  aware  how  rapidly  the 
best  and  most  recent  scientific  thought  is  undermining 
this  “liberal”  religious  mode  of  thinking,  and  how  thor¬ 
oughly  it  is  establishing  and  confirming  the  accuracy  of 
the  old-world  belief. 

Some  of  the  best  scientific  students  of  our  day  are,  on 
the  grounds  of  observed  facts,  bearing  testimony  to  the 
existence  of  a  demonic  race  of  beings  and  of  the  possi¬ 
bility  of  the  human  personality  becoming,  temporarily  or 
permanently,  obsessed  or  possessed  by  them. 

In  his  preface  to  a  recently  published  work  by  a  for- 


1  “Necromancy  and  Ancient  Magic  in  its  Relation  to  Spiritualism." 


102 


AN  EVIL  SPIRIT-WORLD 


eign  savant,  Mr.  Hereward  Carrington,  of  whom  the  late 
Prof.  James  spoke  as  one  of  the  best-informed  and  most 
level-headed  of  psychical  students,  writes: 

“Those  who  deny  the  reality  of  these  facts  (of  cases 
of  delusion,  insanity  and  all  the  horrors  of  obsession), 
those  who  treat  the  whole  problem  as  a  “joke,”  regard 
planchette  as  a  toy,  and  deny  the  reality  of  powers  and 
influences  which  work  unseen,  should  observe  the  effects 
of  some  of  the  spiritistic  manifestations.  They  would 
no  longer,  I  imagine,  scoff  at  this  investigation  and  be 
tempted  to  call  all  mediums  simply  frauds,  but  would  be 
inclined  to  admit  that  there  it  a  true  ‘terror  of  the 
dark,’  and  that  there  are  ‘principalities  and  powers/  with 
which  we,  in  our  ignorance,  toy,  without  knowing  and 
realizing  the  frightful  consequences  which  may  result 
from  this  tampering  with  the  unseen  world.” 

“For  my  own  part,”  writes  Prof.  Barrett,  “it  seems 
not  improbable  that  the  bulk,  if  not  the  whole,  of  the 
physical  manifestations  witnessed  in  a  spiritualistic 
seance  are  the  product  of  human-like,  but  not  really  hu¬ 
man,  intelligences — good  or  bad  daimonia  they  may  be — 
which  aggregate  round  the  medium,  as  a  rule  drawn  from 
that  particular  plane  of  mental  and  moral  development 
in  the  unseen  which  corresponds  to  the  mental  and  moral 
plane  of  the  medium,  etc. 

“Moreover,  if  there  is  any  truth  in  the  view  suggested 
(above)  of  a  possible  source  of  the  purely  physical  mani¬ 
festations,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  Apostle  Paul,  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  points  to  a  race  of  spiritual 
creatures,  similar  to  those  I  have  described,  but  of  a  ma¬ 
lignant  type,  when  he  speaks  of  beings  not  made  of  flesh 
and  blood  inhabiting  the  air  around  us  and  able  injuri¬ 
ously  to  affect  mankind.  Good  as  well  as  mischievous 
agencies  doubtless  exist  in  the  unseen;  this,  of  course,  is 
equally  true  if  the  phenomena  are  due  to  those  who  have 
once  lived  on  the  earth.  In  any  case,  granting  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  a  spiritual  world,  it  is  necessary  to  be  on  our 


AN  EVIL  SPIRIT- WORLD 


103 


guard  against  the  invasion  of  our  will  by  a  lower  order 
of  intelligence  and  morality.  The  danger  lies,  in  my 
opinion,  not  only  in  the  loss  of  spiritual  stamina,  but  in 
the  possible  deprivation  of  that  birthright  we  each  are 
given  to  cherish,  our  individuality,  our  true  selfhood;  just 
as,  in  another  way,  this  may  be  imperilled  by  sensuality, 
opium  or  alcohol.” 

An  interesting  letter  on  “Demoniac  Control”  by  the 
late  Prof.  William  James  of  Harvard  University,  ap¬ 
peared  in  an  issue  of  the  spiritistic  journal,  Light,  of  May 
1,  1897.  In  this  letter  the  Professor  repeats  some  re¬ 
marks  which  he  had  made  in  a  lecture  on  this  subject  de¬ 
livered  some  time  before,  and  which  had  evidently  been 
misunderstood  or  misreported  by  the  Press.  “I  stood 
up,”  he  says,  “for  it  [demoniacal  possession]  on  historic 
grounds  as  a  definite  type  of  affliction,  very  widespread 
in  place  and  time,  and  characterized  by  definite  symp¬ 
toms,  the  chief  of  which  are  these:  The  subject  is  at¬ 
tacked  at  intervals  for  short  periods,  a  few  hours  at 
most,  and  between  whiles  is  perfectly  sane  and  well. 
During  the  attack  the  character,  voice,  and  conscious¬ 
ness  are  changed,  the  subject  assuming  a  new  name,  and 
speaking  of  his  natural  self  in  the  third  person.  The 
new  name  may,  in  Christian  countries,  be  that  of  a  demon 
or  spirit,  elsewhere  it  may  be  that  of  a  god,  and  the 
action  and  speech  are  frequently  blasphemous  or  absurd. 
When  the  attack  passes  off,  the  subject  usually  remem¬ 
bers  nothing  of  it.  He  may  manifest  during  it  a  tend¬ 
ency  to  foretell  the  future,  to  reveal  facts  at  a  distance, 
profess  to  understand  foreign  languages,  sometimes 
speak  them,  and  prescribe  for  diseases.  The  affection 
may  be  developed  by  the  example  of  others  similarly 
possessed.  In  all  these  respects  it  resembles  the  medium- 
ship  which  is  so  common  at  the  present  day.  If  one  is 
genuine,  the  other  is,  and  they  must  be  tested  by  the 
same  rule  *  *  *  I  contented  myself  with  rehabili¬ 

tating  ‘demoniac  possession’  as  a  genuine  phenomenon  in- 


104 


AN  EVIL  SPIRIT-WORLD 


stead  of  the  imposture  or  delusion  which  at  the  present 
day  it  is  popularly  supposed  to  be.” 

In  a  more  recent  report  on  observed  psychical  phe¬ 
nomena,  reprinted  from  the  Proceedings  of  the  Society 
for  Psychical  Research,  Prof.  James  expressed  himself 
still  more  forcibly  on  this  subject.  He  wrote  as  follows: 

“The  refusal  of  modern  enlightenment  to  treat  pos¬ 
session  as  a  hypothesis  to  be  spoken  of  as  even  possible, 
in  spite  of  the  massive  human  tradition  based  on  con¬ 
crete  experience  in  its  favor  has  always  seemed  to  me  a 
curious  example  of  the  power  of  fashion  in  things  scien¬ 
tific.  That  the  demon-theory  (not  necessarily  a  devil- 
theory)  will  have  its  innings  again  is  to  my  mind  abso¬ 
lutely  certain.  One  has  to  be  ‘scientific/  indeed,  to  be 
blind  and  ignorant  enough  to  suspect  no  such  possibility.” 

This  is  surely  remarkable  and  striking  testimony,  con¬ 
sidering  the  quarter  from  which  it  emanates,  and  it  can 
scarcely  fail  to  awaken  thoughtful  reflection  in  the 
minds  of  those  who  have  accustomed  themselves  to  treat 
the  matter  lightly. 

It  is  well  known  to  persons,  intimately  acquainted 
with  the  subject,  that  the  influence  exercised  by  these 
possessing  spirits  is,  in  some  instances,  absolutely  diabol¬ 
ical  in  character.  The  aim  seems  to  be  the  entire  sub¬ 
version  of  the  moral  faculty  of  the  individual  affected, 
and  this  is  brought  about  by  means  so  subtle  and  crafty 
that  suspicions  are  scarcely  ever  aroused  until  the  moral 
nature  is  undermined  and  the  will  has  lost  the  power  of 
resisting  the  promptings  of  the  influence  which  is  domin¬ 
ating  it.  Several  instances  of  this  kind,  passing  in  dia¬ 
bolical  cruelty  all  that  the  imagination  can  conceive,  have 
come  under  my  personal  observation.  In  one  case  it 
meant  the  utter  and  irretrievable  moral  ruin  and  subse¬ 
quent  suicide,  of  the  person  affected.  In  others,  the  ef¬ 
fects  can  still  be  traced  in  the  victims’  shattered  health 
and  broken  constitution. 

The  “Lives  of  the  Saints”  surely  furnish  us  with  fur- 


AN  EVIL  SPIRIT-WORLD 


105 


ther  striking  and  abundant  evidence  of  the  existence  and 
action  of  a  hostile  spirit-world. 

It  is  impossible  to  doubt  the  reality  and  objectivity  of 
phenomena  such  as  have,  for  instance,  occurred  in  the  life 
of  the  Cure  d’Ars.  There  are  probably  persons  still 
living  today  who  have  witnessed  some  of  these  manifesta¬ 
tions,  and  there  are  in  any  case  many  living  who  have 
heard  an  account  of  them  from  the  lips  of  those  who 
had  witnessed  them.  These  happenings,  which  continued 
for  years,  were  a  source  of  much  annoyance  to  the  saint¬ 
ly  Cure,  who  found  them  to  occur  whenever  he  was  to  be 
the  recipient  of  some  special  grace  or  favor. 

And  it  would  seem  that  every  saintly  life  and  every 
effort  after  an  exceptionally  high  degree  of  holiness  is 
apt  to  evoke  these  opposing  and  hostile  influences,  seek¬ 
ing  by  every  conceivable  device  to  divert  the  striving  soul 
from  the  coveted  goal,  and  thus  clearly  demonstrating 
the  reality  of  the  conflict  between  good  and  evil  which  is 
going  on  in  the  world. 

Spiritual  writers  tell  us  of  the  signs  or  symptoms 
which  attend  these  invasions  and  I  have  been  struck  by 
the  agreement  which  exists  in  this  respect  between  these 
writers  and  those  who  treat  of  the  matter  from  the  mod¬ 
ern  spiritistic  point  of  view. 

Unhappily,  we  are  living  in  times  when  any  but  the 
right  cause  is  apt  to  be  assigned  to  these  experiences 
and  when,  consequently,  it  is  but  seldom  that  the  proper 
means  are  adopted  for  the  cure  of  the  trouble  and  the 
relief  of  the  sufferer. 

All  spiritual  writers  admit  that  amongst  the  effects 
of  demonic  invasion  or  aggression  must  be  reckoned : 

1.  An  inability  to  pray. 

2.  Despair  and  doubt. 

3.  Passionate  cravings. 

4.  Temptations  to  suicide. 


106 


AN  EVIL  SPIRIT-WORLD 


Compare  this  with  the  description  of  the  symptoms  of 
obsession  with  which  a  prominent  modern  spiritist  sup¬ 
plies  us: 

“Weariness,  physical  and  mental  nevousness,  sleep¬ 
lessness,  a  feeling  of  being  burdened  by  some  invisible 
weight  making  the  light  duties  of  life  seem  impossible. 
All  of  life’s  prospects  begin  to  look  more  and  more 
gloomy.  There  is  an  impelling  haste  in  what  the  suf¬ 
ferer  says,  and  a  marked  sensitiveness  ultimating  in 
great  irritability.  Often  the  atmosphere  appears  dark 
and  dense,  rendering  it  oppressive  to  breathe.  Common 
objects  sometimes  appear  to  vibrate,  causing  discordant 
thoughts.  The  activity  of  the  will,  memory,  reason  and 
purpose  perceptibly  commence  to  fail  in  the  ratio  that  this 
foreign  external  influence  gains  ascendency.  There  ex¬ 
ists  a  state  of  fear,  distress,  jealousy,  suspicion  where¬ 
with  the  least  discordant  word  or  stern  look  will  cause 
weeping  or  resentment  or  anger. 

“Connected  with  this  there  is  a  weakening  of  the  vi¬ 
tality  and  frequently  an  abnormal  strengthening  of  the 
passionate  nature.” 

“All  exceptional  individual  efforts  at  sanctity,”  writes 
a  learned  theologian,  “provoke  exceptional  demonic  activ¬ 
ity.  The  cold  and  indifferent  only  are  left  alone.”  The 
probability,  therefore,  is  that  the  less  frequent  occur¬ 
rence  of  these  manifestations  in  our  time  is  not  due,  as 
liberal  theologians  would  have  us  believe,  to  our  higher 
culture  and  more  scientific  mode  of  thought,  but  to  that 
forgetfulness  of  the  supernatural  and  that  low  tone  of  the 
spiritual  life  which  are  admitted  to  be  the  characteristics 
of  these  modern  modes  of  thought.  There  is,  in  other 
words,  nothing  in  the  modern  man  to  evoke  the  activity 
of  the  opposing  forces. 

But  these  demoniacal  manifestations,  systematically  ob¬ 
served  and  recorded  in  recent  times,  surely  tend  to  throw 
a  strong  light  upon  the  phenomena  which  occurred  in 
Our  Lord’s  day  and  of  which  we  have  record  in  the  New 


AN  EVIL  SPIRIT-WORLD 


107 


Testament.  They  show  conclusively  how  accurate  and 
trustworthy  these  records  are  and  how  hopelessly  modern 
liberal  theology  has  gone  and  is  going  astray  in  these 
matters.  It  is  surely  a  marvelous  demonstration  of  the 
action  of  God  in  the  moral  universe  that  that  same  sci¬ 
ence  which  not  so  very  long  ago  arrogantly  denied  the 
preternatural,  is  now  led,  by  the  sure  method  of  experi¬ 
mental  research,  to  discover  that  preternatural  and,  at 
least  indirectly,  to  avow  its  mistakes.  It  is  unfortunately 
not  sufficiently  well  known  that  the  age  of  liberal  and  de¬ 
structive  theology  is  also  the  age  of  scientific  spiritism,  of 
the  re-discovery  of  the  spirit-world  and  of  the  existence 
and  action  upon  us  of  evil  and  deceiving  spirits. 

It  is  thus  that,  in  this  age  too,  God  is  not  leaving 
Himself  without  a  witness. 

A  modern  scientific  writer, 1  who  has  made  a  very 
searching  investigation  of  the  New  Testament  records 
respecting  demoniacal  invasion,  and  who  speaks  from  the 
standpoint  of  a  medical  man,  sums  up  his  conclusions  in 
the  following  serious  and  weighty  words : 

“The  Incarnation  initiated  the  establishment  of  the 
Kingdom  of  Heaven  upon  earth.  That  determined  a 
counter-movement  among  the  powers  of  darkness.  Genu¬ 
ine  demonic  possession  was  one  of  its  manifestations.” 

But  it  is  impossible  to  carry  the  argument  further 
without  exceeding  the  fixed  limits  of  this  book. 

Sufficient  has  been  said  and  sufficient  testimony  has 
been  adduced  to  show  that  the  position  here  defended  is 
both  a  reasonable  and  a  scientific  one  and  that,  whatever 
view  some  may  choose  to  entertain  respecting  the  Chris¬ 
tian  doctrine  of  Hell  and  of  the  devil  and  his  angels, 
some  of  the  best  modern  thought  and  an  honest  interpre¬ 
tation  of  observed  phenomena  go  to  show  the  entire  ten¬ 
ableness  of  this  belief,  if  they  do  not  actually  demonstrate 
its  truth. 


1  W.  Menzies  Alexander,  M.  A.,  M.  D. 


108 


AN  EVIL  SPIRIT-WORLD 


And  the  reflecting  mind  can  scarcely  fail  to  see  what 
an  amount  of  light  the  full  recognition  of  these  truths 
throws  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  and  of  the 
work  and  mission  of  the  Divine  Redeemer,  Who,  as  we 
learn  from  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  appeared  “that  He 
might  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil,”  1  and  “Who  has 
the  keys  of  death  and  of  Hell.”  2 

1 1.  St.  John  iii.,  8. 

2  Apoc.  I.,  18. 


Extracts  from  Press  Notices  (Catholic  and 
Protestant)  of  the  First  Three 
English  Editions. 


TRUTH —  {England) 

“We  have  rarely  met  with  a  clearer  and  more  rea¬ 
sonable  exposition  of  the  generally  accepted  doctrine  of 
Hell  and  kindred  subjects.  *  *  *  The  writer  certain¬ 

ly  makes  clear  one  point,  whatever  may  be  said  of  others, 
and  that  is  the  necessity  of  recognizing  Hell  as  an  essen¬ 
tial  element  in  the  whole  Christian  scheme  and  the  con¬ 
sequent  lack  of  consistency  on  the  part  of  those  who  think 
themselves  justified  in  rejecting  the  one  whilst  accepting 
the  other.  *  *  *  The  style  is  equal  to  the  matter — 

clear,  smooth,  trenchant.” 

EXPOSITORY  TIMES —  ( England) 

“The  author  is  no  fossil,  in  theology,  or  in  science.  It 
is  what  we  have  to  believe  about  Hell,  we,  the  heirs  of  the 
ages,  that  he  tell  us.  There  seems  no  escape  from  his 
logic  or  appeal.” 

UNIVERSE — {England) 

“A  little  book  capable  of  doing  immense  good.  *  *  * 
It  is  a  model  of  the  manner  in  which  the  unchanging  doc¬ 
trine  concerning  Hell  and  Eternal  Punishment  ought  to 
be  presented  to  the  modern  mind.” 

AVE  MARIA 

“This  is  one  of  Mr.  Raupert’s  best  books — the  clear¬ 
est  and  fullest  exposition  of  the  doctrines  of  Hell  in  our 
language.” 

TABLE  T —  ( England ) 

“We  gladly  note  the  appearance  of  these  thoughtful 
studies  on  one  of  the  most  widely  misunderstood  of  Chris- 


tian  dogmas.  They  are  orthodox  in  doctrine  and  are  ex¬ 
cellently  reasoned  out  and  they  will  no  doubt  do  a  great 
deal  of  good  in  dispelling  the  popular  and  mostly  shallow 
objections  commonly  urged  against  the  Catholic  teaching 
on  this  most  important  subject. 

“The  whole  book  is  thoughtful  and  stimulating;  we 
give  it  a  cordial  welcome.” 

CATHOLIC  BOOK  NOTES —  {England) 

“The  author’s  study  is  a  very  model  of  what  is  re¬ 
quired.  It  is  well  written,  concise,  forcible,  scientific 
without  being  technical,  happy  in  its  quotations  and  per¬ 
fectly  adapted  for  popular  use.  The  author  goes  straight 
to  the  very  kernel  of  the  subject.” 

CHRISTIAN  AGE —  {England) 

“The  author  is  a  thinker  and  knows  how  to  make  an 
advantageous  use  of  his  wide  and  intelligent  reading  rele¬ 
vant  to  the  subject  under  consideration.” 

CATHOLIC  TIMES —  {England) 

“The  book  deserves  a  wide  welcome.  *  *  *  It  is 

singularly  free  from  all  exaggeration  and  is  a  model  of 
exposition.” 

CATHOLIC  HERALD —  {England) 

“As  a  philosophical  and  logical  treatment  of  a  diffi¬ 
cult  subject  it  would  be  hard  to  improve  on  Mr.  Raupert’s 
exposition.” 

MONITOR—  ( England ) 

“  *  *  *  The  most  popular  arguments  against 

Hell  are  met  and  answered  in  a  masterly  manner.  *  *  * 
This  volume  is  bound  to  do  good.” 


BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR 

Spiritistic  Phenomena  and  Their  Interpretation 

Price,  20  cents.  Postage,  2  cents. 

Published  by  Catholic  Union  Store,  682  Main  St.,  Buffalo. 


Extracts  from  Press  Notices. 

AMERICAN  ECCLESIASTICAL  REVIEW 

“The  present  brochure  *  *  *  cannot  fail  to 

spread  more  widely  a  knowledge  of  the  dangers  to  body 
and  soul  besetting  spiritistic  practices  *  *  *  a  warn¬ 

ing  never  more  needed  and  perhaps  never  less  heeded 
than  today  *  *  *” 

OCCULT  REVIEW 

“Mr.  Raupert  is  probably  the  best-informed  and  most 
able  opponent  of  Spiritism  and  his  writings  ought  to  re¬ 
ceive  the  consideration  of  all  investigators.” 

THE  CRUCIBLE 

“Mr.  Raupert  is  in  England  the  most  experienced 
Catholic  writer  on  spiritistic  subjects  and  the  one  who 
has  made  the  study  of  them  a  specialty  *  *  *  We 

ought  to  be  glad  that  he  has  given  us  a  short  and  prac¬ 
tical  booklet  which  enables  every  one  to  learn  all  he  need 
and  ought  to  know  about  the  subject.” 

BROOKLYN  TABLET 

“It  is  a  pleasure  to  announce  this  handy  pamphlet  *  * 
The  treatment  is  succinct  and  clear  and  gives  one  first¬ 
hand  information  from  a  sane  authority  on  the  horrible 
practice  of  invoking  the  unknown  spirits.” 

TOLEDO  BLADE 

“The  pamphlet  certainly  is  timely  and  its  perusal  can¬ 
not  but  force  upon  the  reader  the  author’s  conclusion  that 
spiritism  is  in  violent  and  bitter  antagonism  to  the  re¬ 
vealed,  supernatural  truths  of  Christianity.” 


The  Echo  Press, 
Buffalo,  N.  Y. 


